FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
It is in the breaking news sidebar!
Posted on 04/11/2003 5:12:08 AM PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
Ron Smith's "Something to Say" Commentary
Weekdays at 6:50AM | rsmith@wbal.com | Ron Smith Show Page
The Start of Something B ig
April 10, 2003 Ron Smith's Something to Say
The fall of Baghdad marks the start of something big, of that there is no doubt. The question is whether this begins the fulfillment of the neocon’s grandiose scheme of remaking the world to their satisfaction, or whether the consequences will be something other than that; perhaps a bite of something too big even for the world’s “sole superpower” to digest.
There was never a doubt as to the outcome of the military battle for control of Iraq. As one e-mailer commented:
“With the exceptions of Hussein and Shahaf (the indefatigable Iraqi [dis] Information Minister), I cannot think of even one person against this war who didn’t think Iraq would lose in short order. The New York Yankees have defeated the worst team in the Dundalk Little League.”
Virtually everyone, even the designers of this war, acknowledge that the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the toppling of the brutal Hussein regime mark not the end, but the opening of a far wider campaign; one designed to intimidate any government that refuses to do Washington’s bidding, to give the U.S. direct control over the vital Arabian oil supply, and to eventually remake Arab political culture into something more amenable to American (and Israeli) interests.
As columnist William Pfaff writes in the International Herald Tribune:
“Quick victory is taken for granted in Washington, and the debate has moved on to two other matters: who will govern a conquered Iraq, and which country will be the next American target.”
Many Americans who are quite gung-ho about the event so far cling to the belief that there is no “next American target.” Others buy the War Party propaganda totally, believing that even the most ambitious Imperial view is not only doable but also justified.
We have decided to follow the Wolfowitz plan for a New American Century, a plan of unprecedented boldness that seeks to make the United States the unchallenged World Hegemon. We have dispensed with the heretofore-successful geo-political strategy of wide alliances and announced to the world that we reserve the unilateral right to wage war against anyone we deem to be a threat to us, now or in the future.
The military strategist von Clausewitz said the essence of war strategy is to have as many allies as possible. To the people running our foreign policy and the Pentagon in this time, allies are to be dispensed with unless in total lockstep with our plans. History says this is dangerous. Some people wonder why we would possibly care about the lessons of history. After all, this is a new time, a new America, a New World Order.
Interesting events await.
THIS article at WBAL - AM - Radio - 1090 - Baltimore/A>
All, it does bear watching! Lest history repeats itself yet again. I suggest a U.S. of A. Constitution written in Arabic and Farsi to govern by the rule of law rather than the rule of today's "man" that will undoubtedly be the choice of today's "man". Woe is me. Peace and love, George.
K, HUH? Ron is simply commenting on the events of the day, and the possible outcomes. "Anti-semite"???? Do you think the Jews ARE actually behind this "NWO" stuff? That is the ONLY way such writing could be "anti-semite". AND, the "stuff" would necessarily have to be a "bad" thing. Again, I ask, "HUH"?? Peace and love, George.
Peace and love back at ya.
I support this war. That having been said, it troubles me greatly that i saw an article yesterday on FR that mentioned plans being drawn up for Rumsfeld's approval for the invasion of Syria.
It would be nice, but I would like to see a U.S. Constitution here at home, written so that politicians can understand it. The sad thing about all of this is that our leaders think they have what it takes to rebuild Iraq when we can't even get it right in the U.S.
What a stupid phrase to use to describe saying what you mean and meaning what you say. No scheme here, and it isn't grandiose and it isn't being pushed by any neocons whatever "they" are.
We are missing two sckyscrapers and the people that were in them. We warned friends of the murderers that the rules were changed when that happened. We gave Saddam a chance to recognize the new rules and then we went after him.
Neocons schmeocons.
So what?
I would not be surprised to discover somewhere in the Pentagon there were plans to invade Canada. It is called planning. It does not mean we will invade Syria (or Canada).
But, if the situation becomes necessary, I would like to think that those responsible have at least considered what it would take to carry out the orders.
Why do you have a problem with this?
I just believe that based on projections of what Hussein remaining in power for the next five years would mean to our security and the likelihood of terrorist attacks that would make 9/11 look like a garden party, we had to do this and that for Bush and the rest of the administration it was a very difficult choice to make.
But whenever I hear that phrase "Neocon", which I (maybe incorrectly) have taken to mean someone whose parents or themselves were at one time leftists but are now converts to the cause, it makes my skin crawl. Years ago phrases like "international bankers" and "money interests" were used in much the same way. I am not Jewish but consider myself to be "philo-semitic" and for that reason may be far too sensitive.
If it gets anti-semetic in the process, that's par for the course. Labeling someone a "Neocon" isn't anti-semetic per se, but it is an all-purpose pejorative.
Iraq was a clear and present danger. Syria may be, yet that has to be proved. I understand they support terrorism. However, with the fall of SH, I would think Bashir Assad is now looking over his shoulder every third step or so.
I suspect he sees the war as driven by Jewish officials (tho' he doesn't say so), and may have a point -- most of the strongest proponents are Jewish. My theory is that the US is doing this in large part because Israel has told the US: if you don't, we will (and the effect of that on the ME would be serious).
My question was, why do you have a problem with the planning?
Or would you rather wait until we are attacked to even begin planning?
I do not recall any part of the Constitution limiting our use of military force. Would you mind pointing it out to me.
The citizens of this country have been threaten, by many currently being protected by countries in the middle east. This administration has made it clear that we will no longer stand by and be an easy target. You may wish to live your life and those of your family at the mercy of those that would see us all dead, but I don't.
If we can convince those that wish us harm that there is going to be a price for acting on those wishes, and they stop, I would be happy. If not, and if we have to track them down and kill them, then that is ok as well.
Syria has supported terrorist in the past, and they are making noises like they plan on continuing. If so, we should make plans on how to deal with them.
The choice has always been with those that do, and or, support terrorist. Stop, and live, continue and die.
I am sorry that that upsets you. I wish there was another way, but I don't see any other way.
But thanks for advising that the author (and no, I haven't heard his radio program) may have a sore spot for the level of influence Jews have in this administration. I'll reserve judgement for now, but it may confirm that my initial instinct was correct. I readily admit to having no patience at all for anti-semitism from the right or left. Everybody has blind spots and that's one of mine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.