They Don't All Play The Same
Syria and North Korea are dangerous for a similar reason.  That reason differentiates them from Hussein's Iraq.

The US-led free world has the momentum and respect that often follows successful assertion of power and resulting progress.  Momentum is often important but always short lived.  The frictions imposed by later events erode past progress and take importance away from yesterday's efforts.  So it soon will be with the US-led coalition's 3-1/2 week fight to liberate Iraqis from the 34 year long Hussein dictatorship.  Friction alone will not diminish the victory or the potential benefits now open to all Iraqis.  What will erode the power of the victory is if the US inappropriately handles the next most dangerous rogue states, Syria and North Korea.

The removal of Hussein's dictatorship from the list of global dangers now allows other dictators, despots and idiots to slide up into the vacated upper slots.  The upper slots are now occupied by Syria and North Korea.  These nations differ in several obvious aspects.  But it is a unique similarity that is noteworthy.  And it is this similarity that makes them meaningfully different from Hussein's Iraq and necessitates different handling.

These nations are similar in their needs to wield terror, albeit in different manners, to get the world's attention and obtain things they want.   But why?

It is critical to understand the basic motivational similarity so that we can deal with these nations appropriately.  To understand these regimes we must focus upon the head of each nation.  Both North Korea and Syria have leaders of machines established, constructed and operated for decades by their fathers.  These two sons of cruel, demanding fathers grew up knowing they would likely take over someday.  Each developed personalities patterned after his father.  Each, Kim Jong-il and Bashar Assad, grew up experiencing a fear of failing to become all that his father wanted him to be.  Each of these top despots is concerned with, 1.)  Meeting his father's expectations every day  ---  even though each father is deceased, and, 2.)  Maintaining control of the machines their fathers left them, the individuals functioning in these machines, and avoiding being toppled and thus suffering the ultimate displeasure of his father.

Two sons of despots motivated by similar fears.  Will the free world understand and thus appropriately handle these boys?

Free To Disagree

The US, the UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain and other nations are divided on the specifics of disarming Hussein's Iraqi regime.  These nations agree that Hussein is an evil force and must be disarmed before he uses WMD again.  Several groups including Hussein's Iraqi regime and other terrorist factions and fanatics are chortling and appear satisfied that they have been successful in dividing western civilization.

Those who are deriving satisfaction from seeing divisions they imagine they brought about are the same people who never have, do not today, and never will get along amongst each other.  They never will muster the intellect, philosophy and learning to understand that progress is made through productive disagreement  ---  even though disagreements sometimes appear destructive.

The nations now divided over how to deal with Hussein may never agree on this issue.  However they agree that each should allow the others to exist independently in the ways each chooses.  The western nations understand that cooperation amongst each other on important issues will provide for the common good of all and productive futures for each.  This is why these nations collectively make up what has become known as western civilization.

What Price Freedom?

It is estimated that to liberate Iraq from Hussein's despotic regime, stop its development of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons which today threaten the entire world, will cost the United States approximately $95 billion.  Wise observers of the 20th century see that liberation and removal of dictators is consistent with the generous and civilized spirit of the American people.

Truly wise observers also see that after liberation 23 million Iraqi people will have the opportunity to be free, Iraq's infrastructure will be modernized and rebuilt, food and medical supplies will be provided, and government institutions will be given assistance and aided in their establishment after a quarter century of Hussein's despotic rule.

Liberation, freedom and the American people will pay roughly $300 a person.  What a bargain....

But when did freedom-loving, civilized people start counting the cost to liberate people and remove dictators?  And what price did our forefathers pay to create, build and become citizens of the United States, thus gaining all its freedoms and liberty?

The US government will spend money to pay US soldiers, workers in companies supplying food and equipment for soldiers and the Iraqi people, workers in American industry who design and manufacture equipment used by construction companies to build modern infrastructure, schools, and homes for Iraq's people, workers in service jobs supporting domestic and overseas industrial and service businesses.   More Americans will have jobs and money to go to the malls.  Retail stores will sell clothing for workers to wear.  Many Americans will receive paychecks on jobs that would not exist or might be part-time if not for our fighting the War Against Terrorism.  Mundane, low paying security guard jobs are already blossoming into an industry that uses the latest technologies, equipment and skilled workers.  The security industry already provides more jobs at much higher skill and salary levels than imagined just a few years ago.  Many more Americans will be hired to replace workers now serving in the military.

The US government will run those usual deficits that governments run in their counter-cyclical wisdom.  Deficits will continue until the domestic economy strengthens enough to provide more jobs and capital expenditure and thus generate more in taxes.  Increased tax revenue will reduce government deficits and, eventually the US will be running surpluses.  To help fund deficits, the government will sell bonds and other debt instruments --- normal functions in a strong capitalistic system such as the US.  These debt instruments will pay interest to those who purchase them as short and long term investments.  Interest payments will help fund college educations, support retired people, pay into pension funds and IRA's, and provide reasonable returns with low risk to those investors who choose that type of investment.

And, for that cost, Hussein, a dictator of still unimagined despicable acts, will be eliminated from around the neck of civilization and no longer fund and train global terrorists.

Fight A War To Force Peace

People are by nature competitive creatures.  When groups of people come together, eventually various factions will clash over different objectives and scarce resources.  A fight, or war, is the consequence.  Eventually war ends either because the combatants achieve objectives, compromise, are exhausted, or destroy enough of the adversary to warrant a truce, and peace begins.  Periodically the peace ends due to new conflicts over resources, changes in leadership, or new scarcities.  Then another war begins and the cycle continues.

The only way to prevent groups of people who have different objectives from warring over scarcities or a need to control other groups is to have a strong peacekeeper who is constantly vigilant and constantly visible to all groups.  If each group perceives a vigilant peacekeeper, each will be reluctant to attack another group.  They may even want to discuss problems rather than start a war.  When the peacekeeper is visible to all groups, most groups will be reluctant to start trouble.

Hussein is a dictator who believes the only pathway to glory is through despotic, greed-filled control over his people.  He cannot see that he could educate his own people, sell oil that spills out of the ground, and develop a major global power without destruction or killing.  Instead he has chosen for thirty years to amass a personal fortune, kill his enemies, and suppress his own people's development.  Over the last twenty years he has demonstrated that he believes the best way to build his regime is to take over his neighbors' resources, while killing and repressing their people.

He needs a peacekeeper to stop him.  Worse yet, he is being emulated by several other petty despots who themselves dream of becoming major dictators.  The world must act as Hussein's policeman via the UN in order to demonstrate to all petty despots that Hussein's path does not work.

If the collective world character does not allow the UN to be Hussein's peacekeeper, then the longtime peacekeeper who has been on the side of justice and fairness, the United States, must be the peacekeeper who, with reasonable allies, terminates Hussein's regime and liberates Iraq's people.

Who Is The Enemy?

The War Against Terrorism is actually against only a few groups of extremists --- a small percentage of all Islamic people.  The extremists are misguided and believe that the way to advance themselves is to destroy other people who are conceptually above them --- those who have succeeded in cultural and economic aspects and have built productive societies.  Winning the war can be defined as stopping those few extremists who use terrorism to advance themselves.  The war does not involve the vast majority of Islamic people.

Extremists advance themselves by destroying and killing successful people.  They probably don't think about it, but that is only a relative advancement.  The cost to those following that plan is a form of self-destruction since their own lives are destroyed.  More importantly, the extremists do not advance themselves on an absolute scale; that is, they do not make true progress in any way that makes them and their people better. They don't advance science, agriculture, a belief in their religions, or anything.   They only bring other people down.  Extremists fail to understand that one of the elements that makes successful people successful is their ability to succeed... and we will succeed in the War Against Terrorist Extremists.

Our war efforts should include elimination of the small group of extremists who use death and destruction to promote themselves on a relative scale.  Then the vast majority of Islamic people who want to make their lives and the world better will see that the way to accomplish this for themselves is to live peacefully, cooperate with other people, and educate their children without hatred and envy, but instead promoting their desires to become good at productive work.

Double Standard

February, 2003:  Hussein's Iraqi regime has ignored, and thus violated 17 United Nations resolutions over 12 years.  The UN has demanded that he eliminate biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons and stop development of additional weapons of mass destruction.  Hussein has refused to live up to his commitment made after the 1991 Gulf war.

Since being drawn into the War Against Terrorism on September 11, 2001, the United States has been working to stop global terrorism, initiate an effective homeland defense, and assist civilized nations in the War Against Terrorism.

So, Hussein ignores all UN resolutions and he is given the benefit of the doubt again and again.  The United States attempts to rid the world of a dangerous dictator and gets criticized for acting like a cowboy nation.

Why the double standard?

Identify The Future From Experience

Hussein's Iraq has attacked five neighboring nations, used chemical and biological weapons against its own people, and attempted total annexation of Kuwait.  Hussein is known to have had many tons of botulinum, anthrax, other biological and chemical weapons, and has been developing a nuclear weapon capability for over 20 years.  Hussein himself decreed on February 14, 2003, that chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are, as of his mandate, now banned in his Iraq.

Many tons of chemical and biological weaponry that he is known to have possessed at the end of the Gulf War are missing and not accounted for.  The shelf life of many of these chemical and biological weapons is several years to many decades and, therefore, remain usable anytime Hussein wants to inflict damage and death.  The high grade alloys and heavy, quasi-stable isotopes Hussein is known to have been experimenting with are potentially capable of being dispersed using several common explosives, such as C-4 and dynamite, during detonation anywhere at any time including subways, high-rises, public buildings, even rural areas.

There is no way to know where Hussein has hidden chemical, biological and highly radioactive isotopes, what terrorists groups he may supply with any of this weaponry, nor when he may choose to use them himself.

Retaliation

Since the 1970's, we have experienced airplane hijackings, embassy bombings, calls for Jihads against the civilized world, September 11, 2001, mass murders like those in the Bali nightclubs, assassinations, and more.  Today most civilized, peace loving, educated, thinking people call the effort to disarm Hussein's Iraq a retaliation, not a preemptive strike.  The only aspect that is preemptive is the preempting of further terrorist attacks and preemptive elimination of Hussein's ability to deploy weapons that can kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Give Peace A Chance Or We'll Kill You

We seldom see banners stating "Defense Now," "Protect Us," "Retaliate When Appropriate," "Thanks, United States of America, For Protecting Our Freedoms & Liberty."  But when we do see these, there are relatively few marchers.   Of course, a few veterans of past wars stand up, some on their one remaining leg, some from wheel chairs, some blind, most older, and they quietly explain our need to defend ourselves or that we will implicily acknowledge our civilization is failing.   These are small, quiet groups.  They don't read poetry.  They read brief essays of their thoughts and identify the consequences of having refused to fight Hitler, Tojo and other bullies, tyrants and dictators through the ages.

However, there are tens of thousands of peace marchers demanding "No War," "Peace," "No War For Oil," "No War For Bush."   They are the weekend warriors for peace who trudge through streets around the world.  Recently, one person who is an organizer of a large peace rally announced that either certain leaderships stop the war talk or she would throw some explosives in their directions.

This is a confused world....  Those promoting and demanding peace are threatening violence toward their own elected leadership.  On the other hand, those who want to protect civilization from future terrorism and one of its main sponsors, are giving Hussein extra time to disarm before using force.  This stoic, but well armed group understands that peace must be fought for time and time again and that this is one of those times to fight.

Which side really promotes peace?  Is it not violence when it's from the left?  Does the left understand that Hussein will eventually kill it also?  Those who see the need for war are really promoting peace.

Conscription

During the 1970's terrorists hijacked airplanes.  During the 1980's terrorists added embassy destruction and civilian street bombings to their activities.  During the 1990's terrorists added weaponry from missiles to knives to their arsenals.  Over the last 30 years terrorists have organized and infiltrated over 120 nations.  Today terrorists can claim responsibility for killing thousands of civilians and military personnel using a large and varied arsenal.  On September 11, 2001, they expanded their arsenal to include commercial airliners to kill thousands of civilians effectively within minutes.  Now they claim to be working on more efficient weaponry and promise openly to kill all whom they see as infidels.  They have gradually expanded their War Against Civilization.  If you are reading this you are either a terrorist or one of the civilized.  You have been enlisted into the war.

Living Just Lives

The space shuttle Columbia disintegrated killing all astronauts.  The astronauts were probing the future, attempting to make progress for all civilized people.  They understood the risks, but comprehended the potential progress and worked toward improving all people's lives.

Astronauts are on the opposite end of the Human Decency Spectrum from terrorists who work only to prevent progress and destroy civilization.  Today there is polarization toward opposite ends of this spectrum.  Terrorists are uniting to destroy.  Civilized people continue to work for progress.  These are two forces in clear opposition.

There is no escape from today's terrorizing bullies who pursue us everywhere.  We must stand, retaliate and destroy.  If we fail to unite and stand up for the showdown, terrorists will forever erode peace and make progress impossible.

The astronauts chose their side and made progress, at the ultimate cost.  The question to ask yourself is, "Which side do you want to be on, destruction or progress?"

Tactic To Win The Next Phase Of The War Against Terrorism

Consider:  1.) The United States secretly identifies the optimal date and time to make the next incremental move in the War Against Terrorism --- the strike against Hussein's Iraqi regime.  2.) Four hours before that point arrives, Secretary of State Powell addresses the United Nations and presents specific evidence irrefutably linking Hussein's Iraqi regime to the September 11, 2001 attack.  3.) The subsequent four hours will provide the media time to disseminate facts that will convince all reasonable people of the dangers inherent if Hussein's Iraqi regime is allowed to exist unchecked.
The attack, having been thoroughly planned and executed on freedom's schedule, will be successful.  It will demonstrate the force of justice and identify the fate awaiting all remaining terrorist factions everywhere if they continue to work for destruction instead of progress.

A Question For The Politically Correct

When you are alone with your thoughts and feelings of how correct you are and how incorrect certain other people are, do you ever contemplate what lies ahead if your pacifist, peace-loving, non-retaliation, leave-those-who-would-destroy-freedom-and-liberty plan were to be implemented?  Do you think about, or did you ever study enough history of the 20th century, so that you know of the millions of men and women who fought for, sacrificed years and careers and even, God forbid the thought of it, died fighting just so that you could be passive and resist retaliating against those in far off cultures and lands who want you dead?  Do you feel so very safe and removed from all dangers that you simply want to whine about how unfair certain elements in our civilized culture are in their treatment of those who have been unable to succeed, provide for themselves, or meet their responsibilities, even though they have many of the same opportunities that you have?

Iraqi People's Reaction

In anticipation of military action, the Iraqi people have started defiantly asserting themselves by defacing and tearing down propaganda posters and pictures of Hussein.  This will likely accelerate as allied forces near and the Iraqi people sense their liberation from decades of Hussein's terrorism.  He can only have confidence in his forces' loyalty in the immediate Baghdad area --- the Ba'ath party's heartland.  In reaction, Saddam Hussein recently issued a directive ordering Iraqi officials not surrender and flee.

Hussein made his point clear by sending his security force to arrest a civil servant in a Baghdad suburb, al-Hurriyya, on suspicion of preparing to leave Iraq.  The official was taken, tied to a pole in the street, and passers-by were ordered to watch while his tongue was cut out and the man was left bleeding to death.

Disrupting, Meddling & Playing Statesman In A War Zone

Uninvited, demanding that bulldozers listen to her instead of exercising Israel's sovereign right of self-defense, American student Rachel Corrie died.  This time she was not potent enough to stop the global war... nor even the bulldozer that accidentally ran over her.
 

Where Is Leadership Or Wisdom From The UN?

Nations are divided on how to handle the armed and despotic regime of Saddam Hussein.  Most nations agree that the final decision is best if it comes through strong agreement in the United Nations.  Several nations, including Canada, Spain, France, and Germany are presenting compromise plans to the UN.  Other nations are submitting yet another resolution to the UN to aggressively disarm Hussein's regime.  Most nations are expressing confidence that through debate within the UN they will reach a consensus.  There have now been 17 resolutions over 12 years demanding Hussein disarm by destroying his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction.  Disarming Hussein is the only way to end his support of global terrorism and ensure he does not again use these weapons on his own people or other nations.

In this time of desparate need, where is strong, aggressive and outspoken leadership from the world's so-called governing body, the United Nations?  How can the UN expect to be the ultimate world leader  ---  or even an effective world forum  ---  without strong leadership at this time?

Leadership Or Self-Serving Nationalism?

What is the key explanation for the German-French / British-American split on how to handle Hussein's Iraq?  None of these four nations is historically a proponent of war and aggression.  The British-American position derives from an understanding that Hussein has repeatedly demonstrated he will use weapons of mass destruction and that he is expanding an arsenal already capable of killing every human being on earth.  Why then have Jacques Chirac of France and Gerhardt Schroeder of Germany chosen to implicitly support the murderous dictator Hussein by going along with their nation's popular opinion against war?  Why has Tony Blair chosen to go against his nation's popular opinion and support aggressive disarming of Hussein?

The superficial and simple explanation of why Chirac and Schroeder are following the no-war stance is financial; it is held that their nation's current business agreements may be disrupted following Hussein's removal.  These men may or may not personally believe that Hussein should be disarmed and replaced by peace-supporting leadership in Iraq.  To understand why they stand by the no-war position requires our acknowledging that these two men are politicians.  They both understand their nations are at risk of being overrun economically and politically during development of the European Union.  Each remembers when his nation ranked economically and politically higher than what it may in the near future within a successful EU.  Each man is attempting to aggrandize his nation by attempting leadership roles in the debate process.  To take a leadership role each man must hold popular support at home.

Imagine if, instead of New York having been attacked on September 11, 2001, Paris or Berlin had experienced the killing of 3,000 civilians and multi-site attacks.  In this scenario it might be conceivable that today Bush and Blair would go along with their respective domestic popular opinions and expressed sympathies for France or Germany, but want to reserve military force to see if Iraq will disarm itself under UN pressure.

Within today's realities Chirac is inappropriately taking a de Gaulle-like maverick stance in an attempt to elevate himself using the popular French no-war position as support.  Chirac is inappropriately applying this approach at the wrong time for the wrong reasons.

Schroeder is taking the old German position of tough talk to propel Germany onto the world stage.  His solid footing is also based upon current popular German no-war position.

Today's European leaders are reacting differently.  Blair, contrary to his French and German counterparts, under pressure of national survival   ---  and knowing more facts than can safely be made public today  ---   is taking the Churchillian position and resisting a Chamberlain-type appeasement policy toward Iraq.  Blair is aware that to appease Hussein today means future dangers for peace and freedoms in Britain.

The question of who is right in his position, Blair or Chirac and Schroeder, requires answering the question, "Which enhances the prospects for long-term world peace and Iraq's progress:  1.) The no-war position, or, 2.) The remove-Hussein position?"  The facts will answer this question.

And now Vicente Fox of Mexico is joining Jean Chretien of Canada, promoting a third compromise position.  Are they also attempting to elevate their nations above anything that could be achieved as quickly through economic, trade or cultural success?

Fortunate?  Who, Me?

Do you ever wonder how you could be so fortunate as to have a warm, safe, comfortable home, a relatively respectable job, have received a somewhat good education, own an automobile, have access to all types of stores carrying all varieties of merchandise, celebrate holidays like Christmas, New Years, and any other religious holidays, vacation time with money and places to freely visit, the right to quit your job, the freedom to go anywhere you want to if you have earned enough money through your work to pay the entrance fee, and so much more?

Do you ever privately thank the millions of men and women who, over centuries worked to build what we know as western civilization?

No War, No Peace

February, 2003:   The issue is not when or if we should attack Iraq.  The issue is, do we sit passively and wait to be attacked?  Or do we retaliate to stop Hussein from providing terrorists with financing, training, and chemical and biological weapons to use against us whenever they choose?

Everyone, including you, has been enlisted into the War Against Terrorism.

War For Oil Or War For Peace?

If the United States wanted inexpensive oil in 1991, it could have easily stayed in Iraq and pumped oil following the defeat of Hussein's regime.

If the United States wanted inexpensive oil today, it could easily purchase it in the open market for marginally less per year than the hundreds of billions of dollars that will be spent to remove the despot Hussein, build Iraq, and provide food and humanitarian aid for the Iraqi people.  George W. Bush could have relatively inexpensive oil and satisfy more voters by not going to war.

This war is not for oil.  Removal of Hussein's murderous, despotic regime is another front among many future fronts in the War Against Terrorism.

Academic

Historians and sociologists are asking:  "Is it reasonable to expect that the Arab Peoples, whose recorded history covers thousands of years, whose roots are tribal, and who remain amongst the most diverse people on earth, actually want to unite and live in democratically governed, modern agrarian, industrialized societies?"  This question will be visibly answered in the next years.

Let's Think It Through

Review Hussein's actions over the last decades, thinking about his use of poison gas killing thousands of Iraqi civilians, his invasion and destruction of Kuwait, his directing of Iraq's resources toward building biological, chemical and nuclear weaponry capable of killing millions, his building of 21 new palaces during the 1990's that are actually cities capable of weapon storage and deployment, and more.  Today a reasonable person may reasonably conclude:
1.)  Hussein wants more inspection time because that gives him more time to enlarge his arsenal;
2.)  Hussein will continue providing weapons to terrorists keeping the War Against Civilization alive & expanding his power;
3.)  Hussein will never join civilization, educate the Iraqi people, and build a productive nation.

Give Peace A Chance

Have any of the various terrorist groups offered, before or after 9/11/01, to give peace a chance?  Has al Qaeda ever said, "Now we have your attention, you filthy people of western civilization, who invent, discover and build economies and fantastic living conditions within democratic governments....  If you want to give peace a chance and talk with us, we will stop terrorizing you wherever you are around the world"?

Who Was Pearl Harbor?

On December 7, 1941, a day that will live in infamy, the Japanese sneak-attacked the U.S. Naval base in Hawaii.  The reaction was immediate and powerful.  War was declared on December 8, and men lined up to defend freedom and the United States of America.  Women went to work riveting, driving trucks, cooking and serving.  Civilized nations allied in the interest of supporting and winning the war against fascism and dictators.

On September 11, 2001, a day that will live in tragedy, terrorists escalated their War Against Civilization when they sneak-attacked the U.S. mainland and institutions.  The reaction was emotional and a prepared and powerful military was called to duty on October 7.  Men and women cleaned up the WTC and Pentagon sites.  Men and women continue to debate the requirements, methods and fairness of improved self-defense and security measures.  The economy was in a mild recession and continues to suffer in the negative psychological climate of war.

Pearl Harbor was taken seriously and dealt with appropriately.  September 11 is being accepted, tolerated and emotionalized.  Today civilized nations fail to unite appropriately.  They fail to realize that, in the big picture, they are each at risk as much as the United States from our common, unrelenting enemy: terrorism.

France & Germany Today

Today's French and German people have forgotten the lessons learned in their grandparent's homes.  Is it that they were not taught European history or is it that each nation has severe internal economic, social and immigrant population crises?  The French and German wait-and-see micro-plan demonstrates that each nation's political leadership is afraid to take a substantive position against known perpetrators of terrorism.  Instead they choose to be passive, knowing that the United States will protect and lead civilization toward elimination of a major center for development and dissemination of terrorism:  Hussein's Iraqi regime.

Do France and Germany not know of or not understand the actions, treaties and words of Adolph Hitler during his deliberate preparation for war between 1933 and 1939?   Do France and Germany not know of or not understand the actions, treaties and words of the Japanese during their preparation for war and reign of death and destruction in China during the same period?  Do France and Germany not know of or not understand that power-seeking bullies are methodical and patient?  Those who seek power through destruction of people better than they are steal years through obfuscation and peaceful overtures to weak-charactered leaderships of peace loving democracies such as Chamberlain's England.

Allowed to continue, the War Against Civilization, now being planned and prosecuted using terrorism and patience, will inevitably strike within France and Germany further destroying world industry, economic interests, social order and France and Germany's abilities to pursue progress and peace.  If unstopped, terrorist forces using primitive tactics, bio-chem-nuclear weapons of mass destruction and psychological weapons such as fear will destroy all nations and their so-called leaders who fail to acknowledge the obvious long-term result of today's pacifism.

If

If Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, it would have hidden them and would open itself only to limited, controlled inspections.  If Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, it would open itself totally to the inspectors just to prove its innocence.  After expelling UN weapons inspectors several years ago, resisting new inspections for years, and now finding itself being inspected, Iraq has opened itself only to limited, controlled inspections.  Obviously Iraq has weapons of mass destruction which it could easily be providing to terrorists.

Billions Of Dollars Into Workers' Pockets

Experts estimate that The War Against Terrorism's Iraq Phase may cost $60 to $100 billion dollars.  The United States will spend that money to acquire labor and equipment.  That is, the U.S. will purchase and pay for equipment, supplies, weapons, corporate and military personnel.  That means that companies will produce products and services, earn profits, and their employees will work and receive paychecks.  Military personnel will work and receive paychecks.  The billions spent to prosecute the war effort go primarily into the U.S. economy as workers spend their paychecks on food, clothing and shelter.

North Korean Nuclear Problem Resolved

North Korea is developing nuclear weapons.  The North Korean population is under-employed, under-fed, and is an under-utilized work force relative to its potential as demonstrated by its counterpart in South Korea.  Each of these conditions could be remedied if North Korea's leadership redirected itself and re-deployed economic and labor resources to build nuclear power generating facilities, developed agriculture, and promoted industries attractive to global investment.  The North Korean people would then have electricity, food, good jobs and a standard of living likely as good as their counterparts in South Korea.  Is this too simple?  There is one reason why this can not happen: North Korea's leadership is actually evil and cannot allow progress and good to prevail.

Terminology Matters

The 1990-91 conflict referred to as "The Gulf War," was actually a policing action.  Today's potential conflict with Iraq will accurately be referred to as a war.

The Question

Considering current levels of poverty and illiteracy in Iraq, would a free Iraqi populace want its leadership to direct a major portion of its resources toward building a military machine with weapons of mass destruction or toward building productive domestic industries and feeding and educating its people?

The Wolves To The Sheep:
Give Peace A Chance
by Aesop

"Why should there always be this internecine and implacable warfare between us?" said the Wolves to the Sheep.  "Those evil-disposed Dogs have much to answer for.  They always bark whenever we approach you and attack us before we have done any harm.  If you would only dismiss them from your heels, there might soon be treaties of peace and of reconciliation between us."  The Sheep, poor silly creatures, were easily beguiled and dismissed the Dogs.  The Wolves destroyed the flock at their own pleasure.

Stop Terrorism

The War Against Terrorism actually began when the first passenger airliner was hijacked in the 1970's.  Civilization's leadership responded when President Reagan declared, "There will be no negotiating with terrorists."  That policy statement and its enforcement forced terrorists to find methods other than airliner hijackings and, over the ensuing decades, terrorism's methods and leadership have changed.  Suicide attacks upon civilians going about their everyday activities, bombings of embassies and other civilized nations' assets, assassinations of diplomats, cultural and aid workers have been added to the terrorist's repertoire during the 80's and 90's.

The attacks of September 11, 2001, signaled escalation.  Terrorists persevered, contrived a new method, and applied it on American soil, thereby escalating their ongoing War Against Civilization.  Terrorists are single-minded.  Terrorists have no time frame for completion of their mission to reform or destroy civilization.  Terrorists will continue to jab civilization and will change their methods asymmetrically to stay ahead of rational, civilized people.  Fortunately, September 11 marked the beginning of civilization's awakening and understanding that it has been drawn into war and must fight to defend itself or it will be destroyed.