Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (35903)	8/4/2002 10:11:33 PM
From: Hoa Hao	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Clinton Admin?? Hardly. Sounds more like some fellow by the name of Clarke, a professional serving regardless of which political hack is in office. "The terrorism briefing was delivered by Richard Clarke, a career bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush Administration and risen during the Clinton years to become the White House's point man on terrorism. As chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security Group (CSG), Clarke was known as a bit of an obsessive-just the sort of person you want in a job of that kind. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen on Oct. 12, 2000-an attack that left 17 Americans dead-he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. The result was a strategy paper that he had presented to Berger and the other national security "principals" on Dec. 20. But Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up. With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. "We would be handing (the Bush Administration) a war when they took office on Jan. 20," says a former senior Clinton aide. "That wasn't going to happen." Yeah, a plan delivered on December 20th to Berger done by Clarke is "the Clinton plan" hehehe... "Berger was determined that when he left office, Rice should have a full understanding of the terrorist threat. In a sense, this was an admission of failure. For the Clinton years had been marked by a drumbeat of terror attacks against American targets, and they didn't seem to be stopping." In a Sense an admission of Failure?? Hows about just an admission of failure?? After the U.S.S. Cole was bombed, the secretive Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, N.C., drew up plans to have Delta Force members swoop into Afghanistan and grab bin Laden. But the warriors were never given the go-ahead; the Clinton Administration did not order an American retaliation for the attack. "We didn't do diddly," gripes a counterterrorism official. "We didn't even blow up a baby-milk factory." But they think it great to press a war plan on others. Now I hear how Billy boy is all set to die for Isreal. As usual when talking about Bill... Talks Cheap. "In 1993 the World Trade Center had been bombed for the first time; in 1996 19 American servicemen had been killed when the Khobar Towers, in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, was bombed; two years later, American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked. As the millennium celebrations at the end of 1999 approached, the CIA warned that it expected five to 15 attacks against American targets over the New Year's weekend. But three times, the U.S. got lucky." I forget how many people died in the first bombing at the WTC, something like a 1000 injured though, that was in 1993, course the Clinton admin had a plan together by Dec. 20th, 2000... or at least Clarke did. I bet Bill didn't even know about Clarke's plan or the presentation til he was long out of office.

To: JohnM who wrote (35903)	8/5/2002 1:35:57 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Should we get them all, and sort them out later? That is what a "Grand Master" thinks. THE NEXT BATTLE The War Is Not Yet Won Take the offensive against Baghdad--and Damascus, Tehran and Riyadh. BY GARRY KASPAROV Monday, August 5, 2002 12:01 a.m. On Dec. 6, 1941, World War II was already in full swing. As with the Japanese airstrikes on Pearl Harbor, the Sept. 11 attack brought Americans into a pitched battle over the future of Western civilization--one that the U.S. had ignored for too long. As in World War II, the war waged by terrorists began with attacks on Jews. Any attempt to separate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the war on terror is futile. Once again momentum is building toward a Middle East peace push, but I'm convinced it is hopeless to look for a separate solution to the Middle East crisis before we achieve victory in the war on terror. As in the 1930s, every delay in prosecuting this war will raise the price of victory, not just in terms of lives lost in the Palestinian conflict, but also of Westerners who will be targeted. Conventional wisdom says that victory against terrorists will require decades. I don't believe it will take anywhere near that long. But America's focus on homeland security could prove dangerous if it breeds complacency in the offensive war. While it is important to strengthen homeland defenses, preventive action holds limited promise in the absence of a clear offensive. No shield, no airport checks, no intelligence budget will be sufficient if militant Islam retains its foothold, its access to cash, training and propaganda. It is easier and cheaper to execute a terrorist attack than it is to prevent one: The price of a successful attack against America may be $10 million or less; the price to America would be many times that. Time and expense work in favor of terrorists, so the longer it takes to root out terrorists, the greater the likelihood of another attack on American soil. If the war on terror is to be won swiftly, Mr. Bush must not lose sight of the war's twin imperatives: a decisive counterattack and a total unwillingness to appease our enemies. As to the first, it was, to an extent, easier to fight the original Axis of Evil 60 years ago. German and Japanese armies and industries made obvious targets. Today, air strikes would have partial effect at best. Cutting the financial roots of terror will be crucial and ground troops must play a decisive role. The war on terror also has a powerful political dimension. It requires the U.S. to rebuild the nations ravaged by Islamic fundamentalism. We cannot wait for the internal liberalization of rogue countries. There will be moaning about a new colonialism. Yet ask if the people of Afghanistan are better off now. It is in our interests that others too are freed. But offense comes first. Baghdad remains the next stop but not the last. We must also have plans for Tehran and Damascus, not to mention Riyadh. The tactics will vary, but the goal--total defeat of terrorism--is clear. Once American ground troops are in Iraq, the message must go out to all terrorist sponsors that this game is up. On the second imperative--the courage of our convictions--America's allies in Europe are wavering. Listening to European leaders on the subject of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I find myself more sympathetic to the plight of Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Dalladier, the British and French prime ministers, in Munich in 1938. Chamberlain and Dalladier couldn't search the past for relevant analogies. They too had a clear mandate to prevent war from their respective electorates. And Hitler seemed to be a "legitimate" partner for peace talks: The Nazis were elected by the German people. The multiparty system had been abolished, but it wasn't unusual in that era for representative democracy to be questioned. Indeed, Hitler's solutions for Germany were viewed sympathetically around the civilized world, as communism looked to be a much more dangerous threat. The price for "eternal peace" paid in Munich by the leaders of the Free World didn't seem excessive for many of their contemporaries. And while Hitler's persecution of Jews should have been a portent of bigger trouble, long-running prejudices and anti-Semitism made that detail easily overlooked. Who would have imagined that the Nuremberg laws and Kristallnacht could imperil Paris and Coventry? Chamberlain and Dalladier didn't have a crystal ball to see the consequences of their deal with Hitler, but today we have valuable historic lessons with which to avoid fatal mistakes. America's allies have yet to recognize the urgency of the situation; they are still questioning the need for tough measures to counter the most serious challenge to our civilization for the past half-century. It is customary in Europe to allow suicide bombers the luxury of a "political" cause. EU countries and banks are working on underwriting Iranian government bonds. Multilateralism and multiculturalism, not to mention anti-Semitism, exert too strong an influence for Europe to play a constructive role. In another striking resemblance to World War II, Russia could once again be America's valuable ally. Despite Vladimir Putin's record in Chechnya and on human rights, he is way ahead of "Uncle Joe"--the hero of the Western liberal press from 1941-45. America's European allies will join the action against Saddam Hussein, or at least not openly oppose it. But the pressure will be strong to then declare the war won and the offensive stage over. That would be disastrous. Those who instigated the current war must remember that Coventry and Pearl Harbor backfired on Dresden and Hiroshima. There will be no peace in Gaza, no freedom from fear in Jerusalem, until we have prosecuted the war on terror in Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus and elsewhere. U.S. leadership saved Europe from fascism and communism. It is again the last hope. Mr. Kasparov, the world's top-ranked chess player, is a Journal contributing editor.