Dan Lyons
~ Tuesday, December 31, 2002
 
FAILED PROPAGANDA: For months, the Bush-team has tried to convince us that the way to protect America from terrorism is to invade Iraq. But a recent Assoc.Press Poll shows that 2 in 3 Americans see that such an invasion will INCREASE the threat of terrorism in our homeland. (poll by International Communications Research, Media PA). It will be fascinating to see if the Bushies are willing to start a war unapproved by the UN or by the American people!
~ Monday, December 30, 2002
 
Letter to USATODAY/ THEY'RE ALL WRONG?!
V.Shlapentokh and J. Woods (30 Dec) note that the world's elite hate us. Predictably, they explain this by simple envy of our wealth or power. These foreign pundits call us warlilke and arrogant, even terrorist.

But under our present leadership, America IS warlike and arrogant. In September '02 the Bush-team issued a document "National Security Strategy for the United States"; when you put together various separate claims in this incredible piece, it says we intend to use our military power to remain the world's sole superpower, to keep other nations AT OUR MERCY. To do this, we are willing to launch first-strike attacks at any 'potential enemy' (as labeled by us) which even tries to catch up with us in weapons.
That document is warlike and arrogant.

Later we announced that when we invade Iraq, if they dare to use chemical or biological weapons against us, we will respond with nukes. Mind, 3 of 4 Americans say there is not yet evidence to justify an Iraq invasion; UN chief Annan says he sees no reason for military intervention yet; but our government gives every sign that they intend to invade anyway. Then they say that, if the invaded country resists with the only weapons they have (chemical & biological weapons) we will nuke the invaded country.
(In the classified version quoted by WASHINGTON POST, it was said we'd nuke them if they seemed LIKELY to resist using 'weapons of mass destruction'.) Such a government as ours could plausibly be called 'terrorist'.

Why are we so sure that the informed elite in so many countries are wrong about us?
~ Sunday, December 29, 2002
 
PARTIAL 2D-STRIKE DETERRENTS:
I suspect that many Americans do not understand this concept. During the Cold War, France and Britain decided not to count completely on the 'U.S. nuclear umbrella' to protect them from the Soviets..since this 'umbrella' involved America volunteering to commit suicide in retaliating, if Russia attacked any European country. So both countries developed small n-arsenals of their own, mounted in invulnerable submarines--if the Russians did destroy France or Britain, that nation could, 'from its grave', destroy Moscow and a few other key Russ cities.
The key to this strategy was the idea that Soviet rulers were at least sane enough not to want to lose their key cities, and also sane enough to know they DIDN'T HAVE MUCH TO GAIN by attacking Britain and/or France..so this partial nuke-force should be enough serve as 2d-strike deterrent, to protect these countries.
Once the Soviets disappeared as a real threat, you can bet that the French at least (always doubting American sanity) promptly re-aimed their missiles at the U.S., now the only nation likely to aspire to world-empire (the Chinese have not yet risen). About the Britons, always posing as the poodle of Americans, we don't know..but if they had any sense, they would have imitated the French. And the Russians themselves, you can bet, have some of their thousands of missiles and n-warheads ready to be quickly re-aimed at America.
Now we come to our fantastic September '02 document: "NATL.SECURITY STRATEGY FOR U.S.', which said openly that we INTEND TO REMAIN the world's sole superpower, that we intend to keep all other nations AT OUR MERCY, using preemptive first-strikes, presumably nuclear, to back up this intention, willing to attack first any 'potential enemy' (a category that WE decide) which even TRIES to catch up with us in weapons.
Very probably, other nations will not passively accept this arrogance; each will set out now to develop a 2d-strike deterrent (nuclear or biological) to counter our imperial threats, warning us that if we nuke them, they can severely damage us 'from the grave'. (They would assume that we will be sane enough to think we don't want to lose New York, Los Angeles and Houston just for the dubious benefits of empire.)
Nor need each nation face this new 'Darth Vader' threat alone; they can ally with each other, as NATO allied against the Soviet, saying that an attack on one will count as an attack on all, and threatening a rain of bombs and germs on us from several directions if we try to enforce our imperial demands. (We may suspect that if we attack one nation, the others won't back them--not when we can destroy any five nations easily. But we can't be sure they won't.)
Suppose the other nuclear powers do offer a 'nuclear umbrella' ("If U.S. attacks helpless Germany, we'll join together to attack U.S.")--even so, the 'protected' nations like Germany or Japan may not trust the suicidal promises of their tough 'allies'. That would mean that countries in Germany's position would be vulnerable to U.S. threats, could be FORCED TO JOIN the U.S. in pressuring the other nuclear states. So the nuclear states, safe themselves from imperial threats, might find it prudent to help these client-states develop 2d-strike deterrents of their own (nuclear or biological. The most feasible deterrents for poor states would be war-germs. See earlier blog GERM-WARFARE: THE GREAT EQUALIZER (Superman hasn't noticed the Kryptonite.) 11/02 in Archives.

That way the U.S. could be safely isolated (say, economically) and perhaps persuaded to back down from their imperial ambitions.
N.Korea now has a couple of n-bombs, and is developing more, perhaps in a few months.
We pretend to worry about threats to world peace from N.K.; but actually we worry about their blocking our imperial commands by developing a 2d-strike deterrent. (On analyst said that if we let them 'get away with it', other countries like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea could follow suit. This writer was puzzled why China tolerates such proliferation. But if China has no desire to attack her neighbors, she can feel quite sure they would never launch a first strike at that awesome, n-armed giant. China might well figure that with those countries secured by 2d-strike deterrents, they cannot be forced by U.S. to work against China.) It turns out we don't dare bomb the N.K. n-plants, for fear they will then slaughter the 37,000 U.S. GIs held hostage in So.Korea--(plus about 70,000 other Americans now living around Seoul) and destroy Seoul and several Japanese cities. So N.K. is quite far along the path of developing an effective 2d-strike deterrent.

Some day a completely sane American regime may get into power, as the Gorbachev regime took over Russia. Then the elaborate web of 2d-strike deterrent-weapons will no longer be needed. Ah, but they will still exist...and will not be eliminated. The world will remain a much more dangerous place, thanks to American imperialists.

Meanwhile, of course, our enormous expense in setting up the Empire( starting with the conquest of Iraq)--an empire which won't 'pay off' for decades, if at all--this expense will mean we can't afford the very expensive project of minimizing the real threats facing us--NOT FROM NATIONS AT ALL--but from hundreds or thousands of mad individual terrorists, technically trained, expecting God's reward if they die killing Americans.

The whole Imperial project is dotty, as is obviously the Bush-team that has somehow got control of America. (The wealthy who financed this takeover may come to regret their contributions, just as did the wealthy Germans who installed Hitler.) These developments threaten everyone, Americans included, rich as well as poor.)
~ Saturday, December 28, 2002
 
ADMIT YOU SUPPORT WAR! Letter to fT.Collins COLORADOAN
Darren Morrison says he's not prowar, just because he 'supports our troops.' But if the troops have volunteered for war, and he supports them, then he supports war. 'I support our troops' is code for
'I support whatever war our rulers are pushing now." (Happily, these true believers are in the minority; a LosAngelesTimes poll shows that 3 of 4 Americans now think the coming war is unjustified. Unfortunately the Bush-team doesn't mind going to war against the will of the American people.)
As a veteran of the Korean War, I am not proud of my role helping to protect one dictator from another. (50 years later, we have 37,000 GIs basically being held hostage there! What suckers we are.)I was a clerk near the front lines, so I saw war's sordid backside. I have protested 4 major wars (plus several minor ones) since my army stint..all while we called our selves a peace-loving nation.
If Mr. Morrison is really not prowar, then maybe he should carry this sign:"Support our Troops; bring them home!"
~ Wednesday, December 18, 2002
 
A GOOD QUESTION: A lady asked, "If they can see Iranian n-sites from satellites, why can't they see any in Iraq?
 
WAR-MAKERS
ALL GO
STRAIGHT TO HELL.
noel, Noel, NOEL!
 
CENSORED NEWS: We should use radio ads and talk shows to get out this good news (which has been ignored or buried by the U.S. press!)
A Los Angeles Times poll showed that 3 in 4 Americans say the war is not justified; only 1 in 4 backs a 'go-alone' war. There will be a few hundred foreign troops, plus a HALF-MILLION GIs to get gassed. This is a go-alone war. Bush goes to war against the will of the American people!
Notice how briefly all this can be stated.
~ Monday, December 16, 2002
 
DUMB,DUMB,DUMB!
A LETTER TO NYTIMES (15 DEC) FROM JEFFREY MATCHEN:
The question of launching a preemptive war seemS academic. It is too late for preemption, as I realize every time I..see the 'empty sky' in lower Manhattan. We are at war. The only question is how to hit the bad guys to prevent them from hitting us again. I don't know if war on Iraq will stop Osama bin Laden, but a nuclear-armed Iraq is worth preventing.
I am against war to correct the mistakes of the 1991..war, or to ensure the flow of oil, or to distract attention from bad Republican policies. However I think this war is also about preventing Midtown from looking like Downtown, making sure the LincolN Memorial doesnt' share the Pentagon's fate.
----------------------
LYONS' RESPONSE: "Someone has attacked us; so we are already at war; we must hit the bad guys; so we should invade Iraq."That is the message of the above letter. He admits he knows of no way that this invasion will stop Osama, who emptied the sky in lower Manhattan, but after all a nuclear Iraq is worth preventing..(So we stop Saddam from getting a 'model-T' a-bomb--to join Israel, India, Russia, China, and Pakistan in the nuclear club in that region, with Iran coming up--it this worth the possibly horrible costs to us of an invasion? The gassing of our troops? The donation to terrorists by Saddam in his death-throes of supergerms to be inflicted on our homeland by martyrs eager to die killing Americans? Mr. Matchen doesn't say.)
Our invasion will not make the Lincoln Memorial one bit safer. On the contrary: the whole Muslim world will be enraged by our slaughter of Iraqui women and children--even more by our possibly nuking Iraq--and hundreds more terrorists will be recruited by Osama-types, perhaps with an eye on the Lincoln memorial. Let's hope that's all they destroy.
Mr. Matchen has written a really incoherent letter. The only surprise is that the NYTIMES has printed it. Perhaps there has been a downgrading of the IQ of TIMES readership. I'd rather believe they print these letters to illustrate the dumbness of war advocates.
~ Friday, December 13, 2002
 
PROLIFERATION IN IRAN:
So Iran is going nuclear! This should be no surprise. The Bush-team announced in September that we would launch a preemptive first-strike at any nation that even tried to catch up with us in weapons. In other words, we will block any second-strike weapons which might interfere with our imperial intimidation.
SO: North Korea and Iran decide that NOW is the time, while we are obsessed with Iraq, to develop 2d-strike nukes. We don't dare attack North Korea, which effectively holds thousands of our GIs hostage, plus the city of Seoul and various Japanese cities.
Iran is a more complicated case. We could destroy Iran easily as an industrial power. But after Iraq, we have to choose whom we'll attack first, Iran or Saudi Arabia. (We're building up a drumfire of denunciation of the Saudis, after ignoring their terrorist encouragement for years.) The Saudis have all that oil; controlling both Iraq and Saudi Arabia, we'd be in the catbird seat for oil for decades--until the world frees itself from addiction to petroleum. On the other hand, attacking the very center of Muslim religion would excite Muslim hatred (and increase terrorism) maximally, for perhaps a century; even the presence of infidel U.S. troops in sacred Saudi Arabia is forbidden, and was part of what enraged bin Laden to take us on.
So Iran is prudent to develop their nukes quickly, before we go after them. How many other nations will be motivated to 'go nuclear', to counter U.S. imperial power? It looks as if we'll have to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities quickly (with miniature nukes, of course) , lest their bad example spread. (It wouldn't be feasible to invade them, while we're occupying Iraq.) Trouble is, Iran might then invade our devastated colony, Iraq. After all, their seizure and long capture of the U.S. embassy earlier showed that they're not easily intimidated by our power. An empire has to put out brush fires everywhere, just as we once had to prop up all leaning dominoes at once: ; its war-work is never done.
(If the story--leaked by some officials to the Washington Post, then denied officially--is true that Iraq has passed on VX gas to Al Quaeda, we can perhaps expect that hundreds of thousands of our troops massed already in the Middle East might get gassed, even BEFORE our invasion, when they're not yet in their space-suits. Why should we be the only party who launches preemptive strikes?)
The thrust toward Empire is risky; and most Americans won't benefit from our Empire--only a few corporations. American voters were pretty foolish to put our government completely in the hands of the Bush-crazies.
~ Thursday, December 12, 2002
 
NUKES: A NEW GAME:
A new strategy announced by the Bush-team says we may respond with NUKES to any chemical/biological attack on ourselves or our allies. But the classified version says that we may strike with nukes FIRST at any country even 'close to' threatening us. (Washington Post/11 Dec.).
In terms of our impending invasion of Iraq, this move changes the game considerably.
Look at it from Saddam's point of view: the only weapon he has to stop or slow our invasion is nerve-gas. But now we might nuke Iraq at even this possibility. So basically we're saying, "Surrender or we'll nuke you."
We can hope he'll surrender, and abdicate, or commit suicide. But if he's as nasty as the Bushies say he is, he might risk having his country nuked (we'd all hope the Bushies wouldn't dare to nuke Baghdad.) Then we're back to fearing that our invading GIs will get horribly gassed. After this happens, Americans might not object at all to nuking Baghdad (triggering a century of worldwide Muslim rage--with a corresponding jump in terrorism),
If Saddam does choose suicide, he might decide to take us down with him; he could donate his germs to the (quite distinct) terrorists, who could use infected martyrs to cause a plague or two in our homeland. By the time we were infected, Saddam would be gone, beyond our revenge--we'd look pretty silly nuking Iraq after he's dead or disappeared.
Bush tells us he'll have smallpox vaccine available for all in a couple of years; but this crisis is going to come up sooner than that. Moreover, we don't know that smallpox would be his germ of choice; nor are we at all sure that our vaccines will work against his germs. Our Public Health System is decrepit; the only (partial) counter we'd have to germ warfare is harsh quarantines.
[See earlier blog: GERM WARFARE, THE GREAT EQUALIZER]
In sum, all our nukes might not make us safe from the risks of this foolish invasion.
If we do prevail, we'll have the same international respect that Hitler had after invading Poland.
As I remember, he also claimed he was launching a preemptive strike, before Poland could attack Germany!
~ Tuesday, December 10, 2002
 
KILLING: FORESEEABLE VS. INTENDED:
Saudi teachers were interviewed, who approved of bin Laden's 9/11 attack :
"Your side kills our civilians; we kill your civilians."
Americans are horrified by this attitude. We say, "Bin Laden deliberately aimed to kill civilians. We would rather not kill them; we don't intend to kill; it just happens. That's why
al Quaeda are guilty and we are not."
But we foresee clearly ,when we bomb areas from B-52s, when we drop cluster-bombs that may explode later, that civilians will be killed. Why should it absolve us, to say that we didn't INTEND the slaughter?
Tim McVeigh said he didn't INTEND killing all those innocent people in Oklahoma City; he would probably have preferred not killing the children, if he could still kill all the 'evil' functionaries of an 'evil' government. But he undoubtedly foresaw that innocents would be killed, and went ahead anyway.
He said the innocent victims were 'collateral damage': a term he learned from his time in the U.S. military.
If judgments are to be made about relative evils, these should be based on how many innocents were killed, not on any distinction between 'foreseen' and 'intended' deaths!
And going by the number of innocents killed, maimed, or poisoned--our carnage in Vietnam stands alone since WWII (in a war that our rulers knew from the start was pointless!)
Perhaps we should quit being shocked at other people's killings; we should just shrug that people get killed in wars, and acknowledge that we are choosing war as a regular instrument of national policy. (Since WWII, we have killed large numbers in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Aghanistan, Kosovo, Panama..) We should work very hard to minimize terrorist killings here in our homeland--which we're not doing!-- but we shouldn't waste our breath on moral indignation.
 
WATCHING WAR: A SPECTATOR SPORT
A psychologist in Utah used chewing gum to compare testosterone in men under different circumstances. As expected, victors in sports produced extra testosterone, as did even victors in chess-games. But amazingly, he found that SPECTATORS of contests also had surges of testosterone if ' their' side won (that is, the side they chose to call 'theirs'.)
This may explain why flabby guys feel more male after watching TV combat: hockey fights,
boxing, football, even the ludicrous pseudo-combats of professional 'rassling. Many also love
ferocious computer-games (in one game, the victor urinates on his dead foe.) Many love to
watch war-movies and 'action' movies. Luckily, typical U.S. males show little interest in
actually fighting themselves.

Many males all over the world have always been like this: they have loved to watch
cock-fights (still in So.Colorado) and dog-fights (still going on in Denver); in the Roman empire, centuries after it 'turned Christian', people still enjoyed watching gladiators actually kill each other. It turns out that when your' side wins, you get an extra surge of testosterone. (So you want to call the team likely to win 'your' team!)

Now all this is pretty harmless; few players actually get hurt today in hockey, football, or
'rassling. No actual human (or animal!) gets hurt in 'action-movies' or in computer-games.

However, our government has figured out how to harness this male foible to get support for real wars, where real people die. We go to war only against countries we can easily beat: Afghanistan and Iraq, not Russia or China or North Korea. We slaughter civilians in these wars, but our spectators don't really think about that..they've been trained to see all the blood as imaginary.

Now and then we get a surprise against a formidable foe. We managed only a
tie in Korea, so this is the 'forgotten' war. We got soundly defeated in Vietnam; Vietnam vets
have paid a terrible psychological price; it is said that later veteran suicides outnumber our
soldiers actually killed there in combat. One reason might be because we lost the war.

But the government has solved that problem by helping Hollywood produce war-movies
where fictional U.S. heroes star in individual battles. So our 'warrior watchers'get that
wonderful surge of testosterone even from wars we didn't win.

ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR COMING UP: Generals who actually saw combat
(the GulfWar generals Schwarzkopf, and Zinni) oppose the invasion. (Gen. Powell did oppose
it until he was pressured to get in line.)
Those calling for war are the 'chicken' hawks: people who fiercely advocated the Vietnam War right up to the point of actually going into combat themselves: VP Cheney, D. Rumsfeld, and their charming, ignorant puppet, Pres. Bush.(Bush joined the valiant National Guard and stayed in Texas; important work there? He went AWOL for 2 months, and nobody noticed.) Marine Gen. A.Zinni commented wryly, "These
people have never fired a gun in war; they avoided combat themselves; now they'reHOT FOR WAR!"

Colorado's governor Bill Owens made prowar speeches when he was young, but arranged that
he never went to Viet war personally. Now he says the way to protect Colorado is to invade Iraq.
Perhaps he thinks this invasion would also prevent forest fires and counter West Nile Virus?

Why doesn't the ordinary man feel indignation about these 'chicken' hawks? Perhaps because
many of our men are 'war watchers' themselves. Enlistments in the military did not go up much
after 9/11, and what increase there was could be partly ascribed to rising unemployment, not to
increased patriotism. (I'd guess enlistments have not skyrocketed of men wanting to fight in
Iraq.) This common attitude was captured in a cartoon years ago; the man is fuming in front of
the TV showing some affront to America; his wife says wearily to the children:"Get your coats;
we're going to see RAMBO again."

We have so far failed to win the Afghan war. Bin Laden has escaped (just as
the present Bush team failed to nab Saddam 11 years ago!) We can't even pacify the capital
Kabul, recently rocked by bombs--let alone the outlying areas. Our genial puppet President, Mr.
Karzai, needs U.S. bodyguards; his own countrymen can't be trusted around him. Even with
these guards, he was nearly assassinated, as was his vice-president previously.
Our Afghan allies hated Taliban, and helped us topple their regime. But apparently they didn't
hate al-Quaeda and bin Laden. Nobody turned in bin Laden, even for the $20 million reward we
offered! We had good reason to think he was at Tora Bora, but we didn't dare send in American
troops after him--the folks at home approve of war only if hardly any Americans get
killed. So we paid our Afghan allies to go after him instead; unsurprisingly he and his top
helpers got away. Now we hear that al-Quaeda are sneaking back into Afghanistan.
So we have not yet 'won' the Afghan war.

NOW the 'chicken' hawks are going to invade Iraq, which poses no threat to America; as one
Iraqui said, "We have no long-distance missiles; what are they worried about?" However, Iraq
has enough nerve-gas (which no gas-mask can ward off) and war-germs to dump on American
invaders (& on our homeland, in retaliation.) This time we have no allies; our GI s will have to be the vulnerable ground troops.
But even if GI s actually in combat end up gassed and diseased, we can destroy Iraq
by bombing. That may be enough to satisfy our war-fans at home.
--------------------------------------------------------
SOME ARE SANE! 4 OF 5 WOMEN OPPOSE THIS WAR (Bonnie Erbe in RMNEWS, 10D)
AS DO 2 OF 3 COLORADO DEMOCRATS. WHITE REPUBLICAN MALES ARE THE ENTHUSIASTIC WAR-WATCHERS./ WATCHING WAR, YOU FEEL MANLY; REAL WAR RIPS OFF YOUR TESTICLES./A GOVERNMENT IS CRAZY TO START A WAR WITH SUCH UNEVEN SUPPORT EVEN AT THE BEGINNING, BEFORE THE BODY-BAGS START COMING BACK.
BUT THE BUSH TEAM IS CRAZY.
~ Friday, December 06, 2002
 
PLUMMETING RESPECT FOR AMERICA:
New Pew polls (5 D) show that people all over the world, [Muslims especially , BUT ALSO NON-MUSLIMS, including former admirers of America] , are turning speedily against us.
(The only aspect of our society they now admire is our 'entertainment', i.e., our rock music and our pornography--but they no longer respect our culture or customs in general.)
Sooner or later, this aversion for things American might well show up in less consumer-appetite for our exports, which are often overpriced.
2500 years ago, Thucydides quoted Pericles bragging about Athenian glory: "Empires must expect to be hated." One difference is this: all Athenians benefitted from the Athenian empire, while it lasted; but our 'empire' will benefit mainly a few corporations.
One possible similarity: the Athenian empire disappeared very soon, and Athens itself disappeared as a separate polity, continuing only as a province of alien empires.
The Athenian mode of government was so despised later that it was never imitated until the (disastrous) French Revolution, more than 2000 years later.
The United States will not be conquered by another nation; it might revert to dictatorship (as the French Democracy shortly became subject to Emperor Napoleon) and all humanity might be reduced to savagery by germ-warfare. And we may be remembered as arrogant and ignorant.
Consider White House spokesman Ari Fleischer's remark:" [Bush and Rumsfeld] would not assert as..bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true." (6 Dec).
On an issue that could lead to war, we're told that these politicians' claims must be accepted without any proof. It's not clear whether this statement better illustrates the Bush-team's arrogance ("We'll go to war if we choose!") or their ignorance (it would be less contemptible to say simply, "No comment!")
~ Wednesday, December 04, 2002
 
BOMB IRAQ
(To be sung to the tune of
"If you're happy and you know it,
clap your hands!")
-----------------------------------
If we cannot find Osama, BOMB IRAQ!
If the markets hurt your Mama,
BOMB IRAQ!
If the terrorists are Saudi
And the bank takes back your Audi
And the TV shows are bawdy,
BOMB IRAQ!

If the corporate scandal's growin',
BOMB IRAQ!
And your ties to them are showin',
BOMB IRAQ!
Though the smoking gun ain't smokin'
We don't care, and we're not jokin'.
Old Saddam will soon be croakin',
BOMB IRAQ!

Even if we have no allies, BOMB IRAQ!
From the sand dunes to the valleys,
BOMB IRAQ!
So to hell with the inspections;
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions!
BOMB IRAQ!

So here's one for Bush's daddy,
BOMB IRAQ!
From his favorite little laddy,
BOMB IRAQ!
Saying 'NO!' would look like treason.
It's the Hussein hunting season.
Even if we have no reason,
BOMB IRAQ!

Oh, we feel so safe and smug,
INVADE IRAQ!
And Saddam is quite a thug--
INVADE IRAQ! BUT...
If he has gas and germ supplies--
We might get a Big Surprise!
Are we sure it's really wise
toinvade Iraq?
~ Tuesday, December 03, 2002
 
B-52 BOMBERS:
I just read that after some U.S. soldiers were shot at in Afghanistan, they called in
a B-52 strike (from Kansas!) Our continuing faith in these dinosaurs is unshaken, though they didn't manage to hit bin Laden or his top aides, not even with the close-reconaiisance help of the fabled 'predator' robot-planes.
During the Viet war we used these super-bombers against guerillas. While our government was saying we were trying to win the hearts and minds of the natives, the 'realist-hawks' were saying, "Grab 'em by the balls; their hearts and minds will follow." We did that, but their hearts and minds didn't follow, and they kicked our butts out of their country.
At that time, someone came up with this parable: "There was once a benevolent elephant who volunteered to stamp out a weasel who was harrassing a henyard. After a while, a committee of surviving hens called on her and said, 'We thank you, Madam, for your gigantic good intentions; but the more your project proceeds, the fonder we get of that weasel ! ' "
~ Monday, December 02, 2002
 
MORE ON MISSILES AIMED AT AIRLINERS: The less-elaborate Russ missiles cost $5000 each, and nearly hit the Israeli plane. They have a range of 12k feet, can be fired from 2 miles away. It's amazing the terrorists haven't used them earlier; I expected such use during Gulf War I.
Defense mechanisms would cost at least $1 million per plane, and would take several years to install.
--It might seem that money is not the issue here, since the time-lag is formidable. But the later we start outfitting the planes, the later our system will be restored.WE HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THIS DANGER FOR DECADES!
We won't have the money, for this or other Home Defense measures--not as long as $1 billion a day goes to the Pentagon.
--We will have to think of alternatives to air-travel. We're letting our train system wither ever more; and train-tracks are also easy to sabotage--but not so easy as the airline-system. The highway-system is about to collapse in gridlock, with the collapse hurried by cell-phones. And 80,000 unprotected trucks per day loaded with hazardous materials will make driving more adventurous in a time of terrorism.
--I foresee the day when most business will be done by teleconferencing, when people think twice about moving 1000 miles from relatives, etc.

Powered By Blogger TM Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com