IRAK - Eine Maschine die Terrorismus produziert - - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[hega]

Nach Einschätzung des früheren UN-Waffeninspekteurs Hans Blix steht das Land am Rande eines Bürgerkriegs. "Die US-Truppen sind nicht ausreichend stark, um die Ordnung aufrechtzuerhalten und Auseinandersetzungen zu verhindern", sagte Blix der französischen Tageszeitung "Le Parisien". Das Land sei "zu einer Maschine geworden, die Terrorismus produziert."
Ein Glück für Deutschland, dass Bundeskanzler Schröder eine Teilnahme am Krieg im Irak so vehement abgelehnt hat.
Wäre es nach Merkel, Schäuble, Pflüger und anderen Kriegsbefürwortern der CDU gegangen,so befänden sich deutsche Soldaten nun im IRAK in höchster Lebensgefahr.
Zudem hätten wir sicher auch Bombenterror im Land.
Danke Bundeskanzler Schröder und nachträglich alles Gute zum 60. Geburtstag.

[for4zim]

Wo kommen eigentlich die ganzen Schröderlemminge her?

Solche Ergebenheitsadressen an den Herrscher kenne ich sonst eigentlich nur aus ganz anderen Ländern...

[Antifor]

Schröder und Fischer haben mit ihrem Verhalten den Ausbruch des Krieges doch noch gefördert. Schröder und Fischer waren oft im irakischen Fernsehen zu sehen. Sie stärkten doch die Position Saddams überhaupt erst noch und bestärkten seine Haltung nicht auf die Drohungen der Nato einzugehen. Hätten sie intern abgestimmt, sich herauszuhalten und nur humanitär zu helfen, wäre ein einheitliches Bild entstanden. Aber nein, diese Idioten müssen ihre Außenpolitik ja unbedingt auf einer Wahlkampfveranstaltung in Gosslar verkünden als Wahlkampfmittel mißbrauchen. Und das ohne sich vorher mit den Verbündeten zu beraten.

Schröder und Fischer sind dumme Dilletanten, denen alles außer ihr eigener Machterhalt völlig egal ist.

[endaxi]

#2 Aber der Genosse Stalina ist doch Tot.

[farniente]

Ach Gott, jetzt wollen Einige dem Schröder schon in den Allerwertesten kriechen.

Keine Chance, da sitzen schon einige Schwachmaten drinnen.

[for4zim]

endaxi, bleibe mal einige Zeit in Weißrußland, da merkst Du, eigentlich steht die Zeit still.

[endaxi]

#3 Antifor wechselst du eigentlich nie deine Pampers?.

[hega]

#2,
Schröder und Fischer sind schuld am Irakkrieg ??
So kann man die Wahrheit auf den Kopf stellen.
Danke Gott, dass die Angie aus dem Osten im Jahr 2003 in Deutschland nicht das Sagen hatte.

[derdieschnautzelangsamvollhat]

Soviel steht fest : Mit den Amis kam der Terror und die Fundamentalisten feiern Auferstehung.

[Antifor]

#9...Ich denke, du mußt den 11. September noch in der Chronologie erwähnen. Betonung liegt hierbei auf Chronologie!

#3...Eine Geschichte voller Mißverständnisse.

Auf wieviel Grad Celsius muß man eigentlich Stoffwindeln waschen? Du solltest dich darin ja auskennen.

[hega]

@antifor,
inzwischen dürfte doch allgemein bekannt sein, dass Bush den Irakkrieg lange vor dem 11. September geplant hatte.

[farniente]

Hallo Gerd,

ich wollte Dir auch noch zum Geburtstag gratulieren.
Gottseidank kannst Du über das Wasser gehen und hast die Flut im Osten im Alleingang vertrieben wie einst Jehova den Semiten das Rote Meer geteilt hat.

Da wir Dank Deiner Hilfe auch wissen daß die wahren Terroristen in Amerika sitzen und nicht dort wo man kleine debile Kinder mit Sprengstoffgürteln am Arsch losschickt um Zivilisten zu töten, und daß ein willkürlicher Luftangriff auf Jugoslawien etwas sehr Gutes ist, aber ein Luftangriff im Irak nicht, da wir weiter wissen daß tote Bundeswehrsoldaten in Afghanisten keine Besatzer waren sondern Befreier, während die Amerikaner im Irak nur noch bösartige Drecksäcke sind, da Du uns dieses alles gelehrt hast in Deiner unendlichen Weisheit, dann mach doch auch bitte bitte ein wenig Politik zu Hause. Wir bräuchten noch ein kleines Wunder von Dir wegen der vielen Arbeitslosen und den anderen kleinen Problemen.

Gerd - bitte tus - dranbleiben.
Und Alles Gute zum Geburtstag, Gerd.
In treuer Ergebenheit.

[HaDa]

Bei einem Kongress für Mikrochirurgie treffen sich ein amerikanischer,ein japanischer und ein deutscher Arzt. Nach dem formellen Teil sehen sich die drei an der Hotelbar wieder und beginnen sich nach einigen Drinks ihre größten Meisterstücke zu erzählen. "In einer Autofabrik war
ein Arbeiter in die Blechpresse geraten", prahlt der Amerikaner. "Alles, was von ihm übrigblieb, war sein kleiner Finger. Also nahm ich den Finger, konstruierte eine neue Hand, einen neuen Arm, Rumpf, Kopf, Beine und so weiter. Der Arbeiter, der dabei rauskam, war so leistungsfähig, daß er 50 Kollegen arbeitslos machte."

"Ist ja gar nichts", kontert der Japaner, "vorigen Monat bei einem Unfall in einem Kernkraftwerk verunglückte ein junger Mann. Das einzige, was wir noch finden konnten, war ein Haar. Also nahm ich das Haar, konstruierte einen neuen Kopf, ein neues Gehirn und einen kompletten Körper. Jetzt ist der junge Mann so effizient, daß er 500 andere arbeitslos gemacht hat."

"Das nennt ihr Leistung?" ereifert sich der deutsche Chirurg. "Unlängst ging ich über die Straße und roch einen Furz. Ich packte den Furz ein, brachte ihn in meine Praxis. Dort wickelte ich einen Hintern darum und konstruierte einen kompletten Körper mitsamt Kopf und Gehirn. Der Mann heißt jetzt Gerhard S......r und ist so fähig, daß er fast fünf Millionen arbeitslos gemacht hat."

[spicault]

Western Cannibalism
Eating each other while our enemies smile.

This war grows stranger here at home and abroad all the time. Despite the horrific barbarism in Fallujah and the gun-toting and killing by the Shiites, the United States is ever so steadily establishing a consensual government of sorts under impossible conditions in Iraq. Meanwhile the Middle East watches the pulse of the conflict, wondering whether the Fallujah savages and the primordial Shiite extremists will succeed in Lebanonizing Iraq.

Or will the American pressure for democracy and reform reverberate beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to move Libya, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, and the Saudis to greater transparency, consensual rule, and an end of their support for terrorists? The courage and sacrifice of thousands of American soldiers now determine whether those who dream of freedom step forward boldly into the light, or retreat meekly into the shadows — and whether we will be safe in our own homes.

Out of all the recent chaos emerges one lesson: Appeasement of fundamentalists is not appreciated as magnanimity, but ridiculed as weakness — and, in fact, encourages further killing. A shaken Spain elected a new government that promised to exit Iraq. In return, the terrorists planted more bombs, issued more demands, and then staged a fiery exit for themselves. France, as is its historical wont, triangulated with the Muslim world and then found its fundamentalist plotters all over Paris. The Saudi royals thought that they of all people could continue to blackmail the fundamentalists — until the suicide-murderers turned their explosives on their benefactors and began to blow up Arab Muslims as well. General Musharraf once did all he could to appease Islamists — and got assassination plots as thanks.

Following the Iranian hostage takeover in 1979, the United States had embraced a quarter-century of appeasement that had resulted in far more American deaths than all those lost during the present war against terrorists abroad — flaming ships, embassies, planes, skyscrapers, and people the wages of its mollifying. And every time in Iraq we have tried to offer conciliation before complete military victory — low profiles, tolerance for looters and militias, allowance for vicious mullahs — we have seen more, not fewer, killed.

The sad truth is that civilization itself is engaged in a worldwide struggle against the barbarism of Islamic fundamentalism. Just this past month the killers and their plots have been uncovered in London, Paris, Madrid, Pakistan, and North Africa — the same tired rhetoric of their hatred echoing from Iraq to the West Bank. While Western elites quibble over exact ties between the various terrorist ganglia, the global viewer turns on the television to see the same suicide bombing, the same infantile threats, the same hatred of the West, the same chants, the same Koranic promises of death to the unbeliever, and the same street demonstrations across the world.

Looking for exact professed cooperation between an Islamic fascist and the rogue regime that finds such anti-Western violence useful is like proving that Mussolini, Tojo, and Hitler all coordinated their attacks and worked in some conspiratorial fashion — when in fact Japan had no knowledge of the invasion of Russia, and Hitler had no warning of Pearl Harbor or Mussolini`s invasion of Greece.

In fact, it didn`t matter that they were united only by a loose and shared hatred of Western liberalism and emboldened by a decade of democratic appeasement. And our fathers, perhaps better men than we, didn`t care too much for beating their breasts about the exact nature of collective Axis strategy or blaming each other for past lapses, but instead went to pretty terrible places like Bastogne, Anzio, and Okinawa to put an end to their enemies all.

Now, in the middle of this terrible conflict, unlike the postbellum inquiry after Pearl Harbor, we are holding acrimonious hearings about culpability for September 11. And here the story gets even more depressing than just political opportunism and election-year timing. After eight years of appeasement that saw repeated attacks on Americans, Pakistani acquisition of nuclear weapons under Dr. Khan, and Osama`s 1998 declaration of war against every American, we are suddenly grilling, of all people, Condoleezza Rice — one of the few key advisers most to be credited for insisting on using our military, rather than the local DA, to defeat these fanatics.

Over the last two years, each time a U.S. senator in panicked and wild-eyed passion screamed that we could not win in Afghanistan, she proved resolute and confident. On every occasion that an ex-general, a dissatisfied bureaucrat, or a wannabe journalist-strategist pontificated about what the United States could not do, she was unwavering in her determination to take the war to rogue regimes in the Middle East with a history of hostility against Americans and a record of providing easy sanctuary for terrorists. This present charade would be like holding public hearings on the eve of the 1944 election about the breakdown of intelligence and missed opportunities before Pearl Harbor — and then blaming Harry Hopkins and Secretary Stimson for laxity even while the country was in the very midst of a two-front war.

Then we have the creepy outbursts from commentators and screams from Democratic senators. We are told by Senator Graham that we smashed al Qaeda only to discover that we had hit a mercury-like substance that now has hopelessly scattered. Well, yes, that is what happens when you strike back in war. The alternative? Allow this elemental terrorism to remain cohesive and united? War is not a decision between good and bad choices, but almost always between something bad and something worse — and so it really is preferable to have toxic mercury scattered than to have it concentrated and pure.

Another pundit assures us that terrorists after American action in Iraq are more active now than before. Well, again yes — in the sense that Germany was messier in 1944 than in 1933, or that Japan was more dangerous for Americans in 1943 than in 1935. Danger, chaos, and death are what transpire for a time when you finally decide to strike back at confident and smug enemies.

Senator Kennedy, the past exemplar of sober and judicious behavior in times of personal and national crisis, has gone beyond his once-wild charges of Texas conspiracies to slur Iraq as Bush`s Vietnam — his apparently appropriate moral boosting for the young Marines, who, even as he spoke, were entering Fallujah to hunt down murderers and mutilators.

But did he say Vietnam? Apparently the senator thinks that the cause of these medieval fanatics who want to bring the world back to the ninth century will resonate with leftists the same way Uncle Ho`s faux promises of equality and egalitarianism swayed stupid anti-war protesters of the past. Or is the real similarity that, once more, as promoters of anti-Communist realpolitik, we Americans are installing a right-wing government rather than promoting pluralism, elections, and the protection of minorities and women — the "dream" of the 1960s? Or perhaps Kennedy`s comparison revolves around 600 combat dead in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberation of 50 million from the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, and the emergence of proto-consensual governments in less than two years of hostilities? Does all that suggest to Senator Kennedy that we are embarking on a 12-year war, will lose 50,000 men, and are stymied by a bellicose nuclear China and Russia on the borders of Iraq?

Yet Kennedy is right on one count in his evocation of Vietnam. If there is any similarity between Vietnam and the current war, it is not 1963, when his late brother convinced us to commit troops to stop Communist aggression. A better year for comparison is 1974, when Kennedy and other senators began to cut off funding for air support promised to enforce the Paris peace accords, resulting in the collapse of South Vietnam, mass murder in Southeast Asia, and over a million boat people, with more still sent to the Communist reeducation camps.

A New York Times columnist (who before the routing of the Taliban warned us of hopeless quagmire in Afghanistan) chimes in about Fallujah with neat metaphors like "block party" and "slam dance," and then ends by quoting the old tired canard from Vietnam that "We`re going to destroy the village to save it" — apparently unaware that the supposed postmodern aphorism was probably made up, was never traced or attributed to any particular military officer, and was more likely the creation of a like-minded journalist also eager for some cute phraseology.

There are plenty of things to argue about and there will be plenty of time in which to do it. In a crisis and with worries about national security, many of us thought it was the wrong time to embark on deficit spending, allow near amnesty for those who cross our borders illegally, and not compromise about the need for both American conservation and exploration of oil, in an effort to wean us off Middle Eastern petroleum.

More specifically, in our postwar paranoia about being too brutal in Iraq, we were too lenient — and thus ultimately will probably be more brutal than we would otherwise have had to be. During the prewar exegeses, there was too much emphasis on WMD and not enough on other legitimate casus belli, ranging from violations of the 1991 armistice agreement and U.N. accords, Saddam`s past invasion and assassination attempts, the unending no-fly zones, Baathist mass murder, environmental catastrophe, and bounties for suicide killers.

More troops were probably needed; the Iraqi army should have been immediately reconstituted; and Iraqi officials might have had a more public role in the reconstruction. All these are legitimate tactical issues that could have been discussed and debated within the general parameters that we are at war against horrific enemies who wish to end our civilization, and who cannot be bought off or talked to, but only defeated, and yes, often killed.

Instead, we see more of the same hysteria and invective. It has been almost three years now and many Americans are becoming sickened by this continual procession of collective madness delivered up in doses of twenty-four-hour new cycles. This country has gone from the shouting and screaming about quagmire in Afghanistan, its high peaks, Ramadan taboos, the supposed unreliable Northern Alliance, Guantanamo meals, our failure to get bin Laden — to "millions" of refugees in Iraq, the toppling of moderate governments in the region, an envisioned 5,000 American dead in battle, Saddam and his sons forever uncatchable, worry over legal rights of the Husseins, Bush`s landing on a carrier, looting of museums, WMD acrimony, tell-all books from ex-Bush-administration employees, and the present election-year 9/11 inquiry circus.

And this culminates now in the animus toward Condoleezza Rice, who has weathered it all and never for a moment evidenced the slightest lack of resolve. I suppose we are witnessing a sort of American pop version of the French revolution — journalists and politicians on the barricades and guillotines constantly searching for an ever-expanding array of targets, their only consistency blind and mindless fury at the old regime.

So let us get a grip. Bush yet again must remind the American people that we are at war not merely in the Sunni Triangle or in the Afghan badlands, but rather globally and for the liberal values of Western civilization. There is no mythical pipeline in Afghanistan; Halliburton executives are not lounging around the pool in Baghdad chomping on cigars and quaffing cocktails; and in this age of sky-high gas prices there is no sinister cabal that has hijacked Iraq oil. Sharon is not getting daily intelligence briefings about Iraq. The war is what it always was — a terrible struggle against an evil and determined enemy, a Minotaur of sorts that harvested Americans in increments for decades before mass murdering 3,000 more on September 11.

Everything that the world holds dear — the free exchange of ideas, the security of congregating and traveling safely, the long struggle for tolerance of differing ideas and religions, the promise of equality between the sexes and ethnic groups, and the very trust that lies at the heart of all global economic relationships — all this and more Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and the adherents of fascism in the Middle East have sought to destroy: some as killers themselves, others providing the money, sanctuary, and spiritual support.

We did not ask for this war, but it came. In our time and according to our station, it is now our duty to end it. And that resolution will not come from recrimination in time of war, nor promises to let fundamentalists and their autocratic sponsors alone, but only through the military defeat and subsequent humiliation of their cause. So let us cease the hysterics, make the needed sacrifices, and allow our military the resources, money, and support with which it most surely will destroy the guilty and give hope at last to the innocent.

National Review

[derdieschnautzelangsamvollhat]

Antifor,

jaaaa, der 11. Setember. Das war Saddam. Ganz vergessen.

Was ist nun mit der Nr. 2, den man ja angeblich umzingelt hatte?

Man kann Rot-Grün sicher vieles vorwerfen, aber in dem Fall wurde wohl richtig gehandelt. Sogar Angie Merkel hat sich zu einem Richtungswechsel entschieden. Und nicht zu vergessen, die überwiegende Mehrheit der zivilisierten Welt.

Glücklicherweise gibts hier noch ein paar Überbleibsel.
Ab in die USA, da könnt Ihr jeden Tag die Terror-Alert-Farbe gucken.
Bis dahin könnt Ihr ja Nachbarn ausspähen, Ausländer denunzieren und Euch einen ABC-Bunker bauen.

[SoeinPech]

Ja, Gerd, dranbleiben. Da schließe ich mich an.

Jeden Tag wird einer wach, dem ein Schlüssel- Erlebnbis bevorsteht, das sich bei ihm nicht länger durch die Mobilisierung einer unterschwelligen Gefügligkeit zudecken läßt.

Paßt schon. Wird schon wieder. Nach Regen kommt Hagelschlag. Heile heile Gänschen. Nicht den Mut verlieren. Dem Tüchtigen gehört die SPD. Es ist noch kein Meister vom Hocker gefallen. Mühsam ernährt sich das Eichhörnchen. Jeden Tag geht hinter den Wolken die Sonne auf. Bevor ein dummes Kamel drübergewachsenes Gras abfressen kann, muß dies erst gewachsen sein. Man macht viel durch, sprach die Klobrille. Lieber eine Hand als Vogel, als Schröder auf dem Dach. Gut Ding will Weile haben. Vorsicht ist die Mutter der Porzellankrise. Nichts ist doofer als Hannover. Aus der Nase fließt kein Honig.
Deutsch sein heißt, eine Sache um ihrer selbst will zu erledigen.

[farniente]

Wie man nur naiv sein kann zu glauben daß die radikalen Moslems um Deutschland einen weiten Bogen machen werden, nur weil dort mal beschlossen wurde einen Wahlkampf mit Aussenpolitik zu machen.

Der Irak und die Intentionen der Al Qaida haben soviel miteinander zu tun wie die Müllabfuhr mit der Seuchenbekämpfung.
Aber Vereinfachungsdenker und Linksgestrickte haben schon immer dazu geneigt sich die Welt so hinzubiegen wie man sie gerne haben möchte.

Ein prosperierendes Deutschland hätte viel mehr Optionen eine eigenständige Aussenpolitik zu betreiben als dieser vor sich hinsiechende Haufen kommunistischer Dummtümmler zwischen Dosenpfand und Putintreue, Atomkraftwerk für China und Windmühlen für Deutschland, Ausbildungsabgabe und Pisa.

Ne, bevor sich einige hier entschliessen können an Deutschland zu denken macht man es sich ganz einfach. Die Amis sind Scheisse und Gerd weiß das. Diese Leistung reicht.
Danke Gerd, bei 20 % Arbeitslosen im Osten reicht das auch wirklich, der Mensch lebt schließlich nicht von Brot alleine. Und daß Du ein großes Herz hast wissen wir auch, denn bei 4 Ehefrauen (gleichzeitig und Du wirst moslemischer Ayatholla ehrenhalber) und solchen Nieten in Deinem Kabinett, die Du alle gut versorgt hast, verbietet sich jede Kritik.

[Michelsen]

Clement, Schily, Eichel sind wohl immer noch besser als die Dummbottel Blüm, Pflüger, Meyer und wie sie alle heißen!!!


Michelsen

[spicault]

Iraq: The "Domino Effect" We Can Get Behind

By Pejman Yousefzadeh
Tech Central Station | April 8, 2004

The war in Iraq continues to be a favorite whipping boy for pundits of all backgrounds. Richard Clarke`s remarks before the 9/11 Commission regarding the war have only added fuel to the debate over whether the decision to go to war was the proper one. But what Clarke and many other pundits seem to miss is that the successful prosecution of the war has brought about a fundamental reappraisal regarding the state of political and personal freedom in the Middle East.

Consider what is happening in Syria. Defying decades of authoritarian rule, Syrians are finding that they can now express their disgust with the ruling Ba`ath party (the same party that ruled Iraq in Saddam Hussein`s time), that they can now demand the opportunity to assemble and peaceably protest government actions, and that they can demand the end of emergency laws in the country that have generally suppressed civil rights for the Syrian people. And they are getting results -- the Syrian government has been forced to abolish emergency economic courts, and has relaxed restrictions against private universities and banks.

Why has Syria begun to feel even these slight effects of political liberalization? Because the downfall of Saddam Hussein`s regime has given the Syrian people hope for greater freedom in their own country. As Reason`s Michael Young puts it:

". . . If there is one country where outside pressure, particularly from the U.S. in Iraq, has been shown to work, it`s in Syria. In recent months the Syrian regime has shown considerable flexibility against its domestic critics (opposition figures have even been named to a commission to reform the Ba`ath Party); the regime did not crush the Kurdish uprising of two weeks ago with the same violence that would have been expected only a decade ago; it has agreed (after much resistance earlier) to move forward on a partnership agreement with the European Union (which has provisions for political reform); and it has abolished emergency Economic Courts (which, as the New York Times recently noted, were used by the regime to stifle opposition businessmen)."

Young elaborates in a longer article:

". . . As far as the Bush administration was concerned, a democratic Iraq at the heart of the Arab world could become a liberal beacon in the region, prompting demands for openness and real reform inside neighboring states. Ridiculous you say? The Syrian regime, faced in the past two weeks with protests by individuals seeking greater freedom and a revolt by disgruntled Kurds, would surely disagree."

This is where Clarke`s allegations, and those of critics who see a disconnect between Al Qaeda and Iraq, are misleading. Iraq always was essential to the anti-terrorism battle precisely because victory there was regarded as necessary to transform societies from where terrorists, spawned by suffocating regimes, had emerged. One can disagree with the practicability of such a strategy, but it is difficult to fault its logic.

If the aforementioned state of political liberalization in Syria continues, it will be hard to even "disagree with the practicability of such a strategy." Obviously, no one argues that Syria is a full-fledged democracy yet. Much still has to be done on that score. For that matter, no one claims that the work of reconstructing Iraq is done -- far from it. But it does appear that the progress being made in Syria can be best explained by the fact that American power was successfully manifested in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and that the Syrian Ba`athists do not want to share the fate of their Iraqi counterparts.

And if Young`s analysis can be faulted, it would be because he argued that Syria was the "one country where outside pressure, particularly from the U.S. in Iraq, has been shown to work." (Emphasis added.) Not so. While liberalization is occurring from the bottom up in Syria, it also appears to be occurring in Libya. As the Guardian recently reported, it`s happening from the top down:

The son of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi said Wednesday Arab countries should support President Bush`s campaign to promote democracy in the Middle East.

Numerous Arab governments have rejected Bush`s democracy initiative, notably Egypt`s and Saudi Arabia`s, as an imposition unsuited to Arab culture and traditions.

"Instead of shouting and criticizing the American initiative, you have to bring democracy to your countries, and then there will be no need to fear America or your people," said Seif al-Islam Gadhafi. "The Arabs should either change or change will be imposed on them from outside."

Seif denied reports that he is a candidate to succeed his father, who rules Libya with little tolerance of opposition.

"Many Arab countries are now following the policy of inheriting the leadership, but there are hundreds of Libyans who are better (suited) than I," Seif said.

Seif even praised Israel, saying that unlike Arab countries, sons do not tend to succeed their fathers in power there.

"We don`t put the appropriate person in the right place, but Israel is a democratic country," told the Al-Jazeera television station.

Libya`s potential democratization, along with its startling and strong endorsement of the Bush Administration`s plan to spread democracy in the Middle East is yet another indication of one of the unsung benefits of the war in Iraq -- the ability to give the people of the region a tangible vision of freedom. Up until now, such a vision has been a pipe dream in most Middle Eastern countries. But with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein`s regime in Iraq, more and more, the question for other Middle Eastern populations is why they should continue to settle for the unceasing oppression that has been their lot in life up until now.

Surely, one of the significant portions of the struggle against terrorism involves rolling back and eliminating the authoritarianism and totalitarianism that is so essential to brainwashing a population into accepting terrorism as a viable and mainstream political strategy. Contrary to the arguments made by Richard Clarke and others, the ramifications of the war in Iraq bode well for the war on terrorism in that the war appears to have served as a catalyst for democratization in the Middle East. Both American national security and civil society in the Middle East will benefit from that trend. And one cannot help but wonder how Clarke has missed -- or ignored -- the trend in formulating his critique.

FrontPage Magazine