Students Of Success

Introduction:

Although politicians and so-called “Intelligence Experts” are the ones appearing on TV, discussing and relaying the news on the War or Terror, they are far from the ones who actually have anything to do with the war on terror. As in the past so it is today, the real planning in the war on terror goes on in covert ops-rooms by the real “Spooks” from the three letter agencies: CIA, MIA, ISI, MI-5, MI-6, GRU and the FSB, just to name a few of the major players.

The sad truth is that these spook agencies are in the large, responsible for the effectiveness’ of the major Islamic terrorist groups. The tactical planning, the CQB skills and the weapon and explosive knowledge of these Islamic terrorists, are largely courtesy of the spook agencies.

I am not arguing that the spook agencies are directly responsible for the terrorist acts, carried out by these Islamic terror groups. But that with a bit of common sense and forward planning, they should have realized the future evils they where helping to create. Old wisdom say it all, “When you lie with dogs, you get fleas” translated into modern languages that even a mission-oriented spook should be able to understand, the old wisdom says “When you train terrorists, innocent civilians get killed”

Afghanistan:
Prior to and during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, the US spook agencies saw in their infinite wisdom the Mujahadeen, as a means to an end. The support of the Mujahadeen forces were initiated by the Carter administration, prior to the Soviet invasion and was increased by the Reagan administration. During both administrations, intelligence agents from the CIA and MIA went to Afghanistan by way of the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, to make secret contributions in forms of funds, weapons and training to the Afghani resistance fighters.

The strategic plan was to stir up a rebellion against the Afghan government, which would result in the influx of Soviet troops. After the “Soviet Invasion” the purpose was to help the Afghani resistance fighting the Soviet forces. The objective of the plan was to ensure that the occupation would be very costly, for the Soviet army in funds and life’s. This wisdom of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” was arguably not a new idea as it has been an ideology of warfare, from the dawn of time. Training and supporting your enemies enemy, was the big thing during the cold war, from Asia to Africa, from the Middle East to South America, is was the tactic favoured by the Super Powers, their allies and their foes.

However, the Intelligence agents were soon to discover that, the Afghanis where in general a untrustworthy ally, who would only follow a set plan as long as they did not have other plans on the sideline. Unfortunately, they always had plans on the side which had a tendency to become the most important plan, plans that at least most of the time came ahead of fighting the Russians. Inter-Tribal feuds where constantly flaring, this in turn led to an unstable situation where military and political alliances changed faster than a “prostitute” did sheets.

This is where the “spooks” came up with a solution which still haunts us today, they decided to direct the Pakistani ISI, to focus most of their training and supplies on the Arab Mujahadeen or jihadist’s, who had more zeal for the fight against the Russians.

The Afghan warlords continued to receive the majority of the cash flowing from the spook agencies, but it was the radical Islamic Arabs that got the real training and in return they delivered. The mighty Red Army was forced to retreat in shame and defeat. Russia had met its Afghanistan, as Napoleon had met his Waterloo and the US had met its Vietnam; the spooks of the west had won the decade.

The Spooks success caused a stir in the Soviet “Empire of Evil”, within a few years the Soviet Empire where defeated by stratagem and replaced by a “democratic” Russia. So one might say we owe the spooks congratulations on such a worthy contribution to human history. Had it not been for the minor fact, that the CIA/ISI trained Mujahadeen turned into the infamous terror groups, associated with Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda Group.

The Al Qaeda group has in its relatively short terrorist lifespan, turned into the “Olympic Champion” of terror. The Al Qaeda group has staged very few attacks compared to other known terrorist groups, however Al Qaeda has blown the scale when it comes to fatalities and injures caused by terrorist attacks. From January 1998 to December 2003, Al Qaeda only caused a measly 0,1% of all terrorist incidents, grotesquely though the 0,1% of attacks caused 29% of the fatalities and 22% of the injuries inflicted by all terrorist acts in the same time span!

Chechnya:
One would think that Russia’s experience in the Soviet-Afghan war, would have taught it that radical Islamic fighters are neither just the enemy of your enemy, but also your enemy. However the GRU (Russia’s military intelligence unit) fell prey to the same short sightedness as the CIA did, in 1994 they trained and funded mercenaries to fight in Abkhazia, among them where a number of militant Islamic Chechens. The purpose of the clandestine operation were to destabilize the Abkhazian region, in order to weaken the Government of Georgia who sought total separation from Russia. Among those militants were Shamil Basayev, a name the Russians will never again forget although they are more than willing to forget that they trained him.

Shamil Basayev started his guerrilla/terrorist campaign in 1991, when he masterminded the hijacking of a passenger plane from the town of Mineralnye Vody, the plane was flown to Turkey where the hostages where freed. An agreement ensured the Chechens free passage back to Chechnya. Bolstered by his hijacking success Basayev started his guerrilla campaign, gaining combat experience by fighting in the regions many conflicts with the Azerbaijanis in Nagorno-Karabakh, against the Georgians in Abkhazia and against the Russians in Chechnya. In between the fighting,Basayev received training in terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

However, Basayevs real terror campaign began with the 1995, attack at the Budennovsk militia headquarters which evolved into the hospital siege. Shamil Basayev appears to be the mastermind behind all of the major Chechen terrorist attacks, carried out since 1995. His network of guerrilla/terrorist groups has several names, the Abkhaz battalion, Sword of Islam, Movsar Barayev Gang and Riyadh-as-Saliheen, the latter being the most notorious group. Since 1995, the network has carried out at least 13 successful terrorist attacks which has caused ca. 949 fatalities and injured a minimum of 1147. This is an enormously high fatality and injury rate for a single terrorist network.

The Shamil Basayev terrorist network has proven itself far more efficient and deadly, than other well-known terrorist groups, such as FARC, HAMAS and ETA. Although the Shamil Basayev network has not yet reached the horrific scale of the Al Qaeda attacks, the future may prove to be different.

Osama Bin Laden and Shamil Basayev are both Islamic militants, who not only fight with a religious zeal but also with sound tactics, learned through training provided by the CIA and GRU. These tactics combined with actual combat experience, has made a mock of the best of both US and Russia’s elite forces. It is a tragic irony that these two most infamous terrorists where in part created by the superpowers, who now find them as their fiercest enemies. Mockingly, both carry out their operations dressed in US military uniforms and using Russian assault rifles as their primary weapons.

Guantanamo:
Lately, the US has been releasing several enemy combatants from the Guantanamo prisoner camp, this has been done due to mounting international pressure, to either convict or release the prisoners, of the original 680 enemy combatants who were brought to Guantanamo, only 4 have been charged so far. However, the choice of which prisoners to release clearly remains with the CIA and MIA, who are in charge of the investigations and interrogations. As in the past so in the present, the three-letter agencies seems incapable of understanding the absolute commitment to jihad, by the Islamic militants.

Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane, a half Danish, half-Algerian enemy combatant who was caught on the Afghan Pakistani border, was recently released from the Guantanamo camp. He had no sooner arrived in Denmark before he publicly stated that the Danish government where a legitimate target of Islamic terrorism, due to the Danish involvement in the war in Iraq. Subsequently, he publicly stated that the US “can use [my promise not to engage in warfare] as toilet paper.” He next stated that he intends to continue Jihad by joining the Chechen militants in their fight against the Russian military.

Abdullah Mahsud, a Pakistani enemy combatant caught in Afghanistan, were also recently released from the Guantanamo camp. As soon as he arrived in the Waziristan region in Pakistan, he immediately reconfirmed his commitment to Jihad and met with his former Taliban allies, he planned and carried out a kidnapping of two Chinese engineers. The subsequent attempt by the Pakistani Special Forces to free the hostages, resulted in the death of one of the hostages and five of the kidnappers. Abdullah Mahsud, however managed to escape and is wanted by the Pakistani forces, obviously for more than just neglecting to keep his promise,to the US of not “to engage in warfare”, hopefully a promise to not engage in terrorism was also included in his release conditions.

Conclusions:
The real problem with making agreements with Islamic militants is that they are devout Muslims, who have dedicated their life to Jihad which brings us to a problem, that the Israelis knows only to well. A Muslim does not have to honour his word, or even his signature as Muslims are permitted to lie to non-Muslims and break agreements with them, under the Koranic law of Hudaibiya.

The four examples of Osama Bin Laden, Shamil Basayev, Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane and Abdullah Mahsud should prove beyond doubt that, the consequences of dealing and negotiating with Islamic militants committed to Jihad, is not only foolish but also outright disastrous. For decades the Official stance by western Governments regarding terrorism, has been a firm strategy of “No negotiations with terrorists”, a controversial strategy but clearly it is about time that someone explained to the Spook Agencies, that no negotiations also means no funds, weapons and training. They should also be reminded that the end does not justify the means.

When it comes to dealing with Islamic guerrillas and terrorists, the so-called counter intelligence operations undertaken during the last three decades, by the three-letter intelligence agencies have proven to be anything but intelligent, with hindsight these operations have proved to be absolutely “Counter Intelligent”.

Dan Sommer is the author of the SD Agent, a Surveillance Detection Manual, he has been part of the process of designing, implementing and training a SD team for a European Embassy. His 17 years security career started in 1986 and he has active experience from military, security, close protection, counter assault team and surveillance detection operations. Since 1994 the author has been writing training material’s for security companies and police departments. He has been instructing courses world-wide for security officers, bodyguards, police officers, counter assault teams and surveillance detection units. Dan currently acts as the International Director of the World Federation of Bodyguards and has a private business as a Security & Protection Consultant. His work can be viewed at his website http://www.DanSommer.Biz

One other significant problem for freedom of reporting is that despite the existence of guidelines for how embedded reporters should be treated, the individual experience of reporters can be largely controlled by the local commander in charge of them. In fact, during the first Persian Gulf War, the informal restrictions imposed on some journalists were so onerous that they were unable to transmit any information until after the conclusion of the conflict. Sherry Ricchiardi, Preparing for War, AMERICAN JOURNALISM REVIEW, March 2003. Even in the recent Iraq War with a stated policy of encouraging freedom of reporting, many commanders did not honor the spirit of the program and imposed their own restrictions on coverage. Jack Shafer, Embeds and Unilaterals, SLATE, May 1, 2003. This potential for local veto over coverage is especially disturbing given that one of the primary benefits of embedded journalism programs is supposedly the ability of embedded reporters to perform their watchdog functions on the ground. If a local commander can make snap decisions to restrict access, the benefit in terms of deterring or monitoring potential atrocities or violations of the rules of warfare is minimized. Only a unit that knows that all of its activities could be reported will be restrained by the presence of an embedded journalist.

The embedded reporter program creates problems for the independence of the press even outside of those who are members of the program. During the Iraq War, the embedding program created a “credentialing” system in which members of the media were only considered officially acceptable if they were embeds. Id. This resulted in a backlash against non-embedded reporters, who “were often treated as pests with no right to the battlefield . . . [i]n many instances, the military prevented unilaterals from covering the war.” Id. This informal credentialing system is a disturbing development that threatens to erase any contributions that embedded journalism could make to the media’s ability to freely and accurately cover wartime events.

IV. Constitutionality of Restrictions on Coverage

Embedded journalists in Iraq were forced to comply with a number of restrictions on their movements, actions, and coverage of the war. These restrictions were wide-ranging, placing specific limitations on what kinds of information could be released by journalists and on what activities they could perform in search of information. The existence of prior restrictions on the ability of journalists to discuss and report on specific activities raises First Amendment questions and, even if it is not unconstitutional, should be analyzed and critiqued to determine their effect on the freedom of the press.
The rules that embedded reporters were expected to comply with arguably compromise their integrity and would violate the First Amendment for those who, like Justice Douglas, believe that “no law” means no law. Reporters were not allowed to travel independently, restricting their ability to verify information they were given or seek outside information on the events they witnessed with their units. See Jenson at 22. Interviews had to be conducted on the record, decreasing the likelihood that soldiers would give up unapproved information to the journalist for fear of reprisal. Id. Officers were permitted to censor or temporarily restrict electronic transmissions. Id. There were also several reporters who were removed from their units for “allegedly giving too much information about troop locations on television.” Id. The Pentagon issued a long list of guidelines of information that embedded reporters were prohibited from broadcasting. Reporters were always subject to local restrictions by the commanding officer. Id. While there would certainly be good reason in many situations to prevent specific pieces of information from being broadcast, the restrictions likely also encompassed a great deal of information whose publication would make no difference to the war effort.

Under Justice Douglas’ literal view of the First Amendment, it is plain that these regulations should be unconstitutional. If no law means absolutely no restrictions, then military control over the ability of embedded journalists to file their reports is plainly unconstitutional. Other, more permissive scholars of the First Amendment might apply the Court’s tiers of scrutiny to determine whether the restrictions served a compelling government interest. For a fairly recent judicial outline of these tiers of scrutiny in application, see Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, 512 U.S. 753, 761-66 (1994). While Justice Douglas’ absolutist view is not generally accepted law, it does raise several First Amendment questions regarding embedded journalism. Most modern courts would probably be deferential to virtually any decision by the military on the grounds that journalists voluntarily agree to the restrictions in exchange for access they would not otherwise have and on the basis of the political question doctrine and a general reluctance to question executive decisions in wartime. See Michael J. Glennon, The United States Constitution in its Third Century: Foreign Affairs: Distribution of Constitutional Authority: Foreign Affairs and the Political Question Doctrine, 83 A.J.I.L. 814, 815 (1989) (“In modern American society, these justifications for judicial abstention seem increasingly to be calls for judicial abdication.”) Even if court chose to hear a case in this area, in past censorship cases involving the Persian Gulf War the conflict was militarily resolved so quickly that courts dismissed pending cases on the grounds that they had been rendered moot. See Nation Magazine v. United States Dep’t of Defense, 762 F. Supp. 1558, 1570 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (dismissing censorship case on grounds of mootness because the war had ended and restrictions had already been removed). The judicial system may, in any event, move too slowly to serve as an adequate check on these restrictions. A rejection of Douglas’ interpretation, however, does not end the debate about whether embedded journalism is harmful to free speech interests. Individual rights may be more broadly protected by constitutional law than the plain text of the constitution suggests. Even if the constitutional “penumbra” does not encompass some protection of the ability of the media to perform its functions as either informer or watchdog, the ideals of free speech extend more broadly than the text of the First Amendment. The restrictions imposed by the military on embedded reporters may violate these principles without being technically unconstitutional. Erwin Knoll, National Security: The Ultimate Threat to the First Amendment, 66 MINN. L. REV. 161 (1981).

Teve Torbes is a prolific author about such subjects as fleas along with his favorite thing which is an air mattress. He has also created a valuable air purifier site.

Dear Bush,

I must first of all apologize for not including my address on this letter. In this age of terrorism, one should be wary of disclosing private addresses in public places. So I decided to send you this mail from “an undisclosed secret location.”

The purpose of my writing you, however, is to congratulate you for your “decisive” victory in the November election. You must see what I am doing this moment—playing my ukulele in my garden and singing “God Bless America.” Do you know how to play musical instruments?

But I do not even think that that is necessary. For did Bob Kerry not gad about town twanging his guitar with his right fingers and wiping big drops of sweat with the left? Didn’t know that gals don’t like sweaters. And lost badly. I heard he wept profusely too. Was that true? He thought that the ability to play musical instruments win elections, just because Bill Clinton “saxophoned” your dad out of office. But Kerry wasn’t Bill.

You have shown that you have guts, and that only gung-ho men rule America. For did you not bungee jump from the top floor of Empire State Building the other day while singing the Star-Spangled Banner–landing unscathed at ground zero and blowing hot kisses to cheering spectators. You might protest enacting such “kamikaze” acts, but that was exactly what you did when you single handedly “vanished” ALL those BEASTS who brought down the World Trade Center and flew them blindfolded with their arms chained to their seats for RE-EDUCATION at Guantanamo. And endeared yourself to the hearts of Americans ever after.

So, why did the Democrats suddenly dream up the word “electability” and thought that Kerry was the “best thing” to happen to America just because he saved ONE fellow soldier from drowning in a river in far away Vietnam. And they even downplayed your role in the war. Or did you not fight?

But all that is history, now. You are electable, Kerry is not. Period. And many of your detractors, not just the Democrats, will be put to shame.

Let’s consider the friends of the earth. Just before the election, they prayed to see your back, saying that you had better the earth perished than honor the Kyoto Agreement. But now you won! Do not take them serious.

The earth is gong to die, anyway. TIME magazine gives it about 4 billion years to go. If it doesn’t stop turning, a stray asteroid from outer space might just as well kiss it a hasty goodbye.

What do they even do in those earth summits than watch half-naked dancing virgins, gulp down multi-colored wines, swallow exotic meals and leave the earth to groan in pains. And yet they say you are the earth’s mortal enemy.

Even some world leaders (particularly those in the EU), and big time politicians are disappointed that you are still around. Not a few of them regard you as a self-willed and strong-headed man. Nelson Mandela who used a word that sounded like “psychopath” and the former German official, who called you a “nazi,” will be most disappointed. Chirac and Schroder–old Europeans–would weep like babies.

Your list of enemies is a fairly long one (I hope you are keeping a black book). Because Nobel laureates—even these ones—have joined the infamous register. Just before the election a group of them signed a statement calling on all Americans to remove you. Because you are world enemy number one. Imagine such a statement coming from the most distinguished persons on earth. Now, they are walking with their tails between their legs.

Come to think of it, Bush, Did some of them merit the award? I know that they would equally ask if you deserved the victory. But seriously speaking, was it not Alfred Nobel who invented the explosives, which they now say that you are using to “dynamite” people at random? Don’t mind their hypocrisy. Not that you are even itching to be awarded the prestigious prize. Damn them!

Even then, writers are the most disgraced people for writing you out of the White House before your time. Let them dare write again. Never mind, I will send them a riposte in your behalf. Even the movie stars are up in arms against you,. Now, I will advise you to turn up the thermostat of the Fahrenheit and burn them till they expire.

And cynics who are coming to terms with your victory are saying that you only won by a “slight” margin. Some are also wondering if your brother in the “F” state didn’t do one or two things behind a magic curtain to influence the poll’s result. So they are still using words like “rigging” and the “F factor.” But don’t mind them, even if they call it the “hand of God.”

Those that I pity the most are terrorists, leaders of rogue states, and those producing weapons of mass destruction with evil intentions.
I did not mention North Korea or Iran. To be honest with a capital “H,” I do not want Hong Song-nam and Mohammad Khatami to be “Saddamized.” Or will they be the next to go? You know what I’m talking about–”regime change” and the hooded man in red, the hangman. I’m told that the job is in high demand in these seasons of anomy.

I didn’t realize how easy it is to create jobs till now. What if the U.N. sponsors an international conference titled HOW TO CREATE A MILLION JOBS IN A YEAR, with a little explanation on how to do mass rape and operate torture chambers, for the FULL benefit of genocidal heads of state. For spcial guest of honor, I nominate Omar al-Bashir of Sudan. And for observers, I recommend the “janjaweed,” and delegates from Bosnia and Rwanda.

I feel very sorry for them because as you said in your 2004 State of the Union Address, the work would not be left “unfinished”; “this danger must be defeated”; “we refuse to live in the shadows of this ultimate danger.”

Good talk. For according to you again “the world without Saddam Hussein is [really] a safer and better world.” See how peaceful the earth is now. Actually, “the world is changing for the better,” as you said and before you leave the White House, the world would have been transformed into a paradise without wars and terrorism.

But make no mistake about it, the world will return to the status quo if you hand over power to the Democrats. I think that the only electable person who can consolidate your enviable legacy is Dick Cheney. I do not mean that his unsmiling visage will frighten away terrorists and bad people. Rather, I know that he is the most suitable man for the job judging from what he said on July 24, 2003: “One by one, in every corner of the world, we will hunt the terrorists down and destroy them.” He sounds even a bit more upbeat than you.

Which means that after you have left the paradise earth to him, he will upgrade it to heavenly status. Then we will have heaven on earth and live in ETERNAL BLISS ever after. I am eagerly looking forward to that GREAT day.

Once again, congratulations! And three cheers!

Yours sincerely,
Arthur Zulu.

Arthur Zulu is the author of HOW TO WRITE A BEST-SELLER, CHASING SHADOWS! and A LETTER TO NOAH to be published soon.
Goto:
http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/21013
Maito: mostcontroversialwriter@yahoo.com
For his works and FREE articles,use the search engines and search “ARTHUR ZULU.”

About the Author

Arthur Zulu is an author, book reviewer and editor.

This article discusses how governments seek public endorsement
of their policies through Nationalism.

In speeches and on Vietnam memorials it always states that the
soldiers, who died, died for our freedom. This is really strange
and illogical. We actually lost the war. Did the victorious
“Charlie Cong” storm America and enslave us? Once we left
Vietnam, we hardly had anything to do with them and they no
longer posed a problem.

But did they ever pose a problem? It seems the word “Communist”
was the real problem. When Ho Chi Minh declared that North
Vietnam was Communist, America’s cold war Red-phobia associated
Vietnam with China and Russia even though there was no initial
connection. North Vietnam threatened no one but South Vietnam.
It was their war not America’s.

But the US insisted on helping South Vietnam. How is this
related to the freedom of individual Americans? The US soldier
was told that he was fighting to preserve the liberty of the
homeland, but this was a vicious lie. To compound the problem
much of the military of the period were drafted. They were taken
from their family and careers and sent to fight for a cause that
was completely unjust.

They did not die for our freedom. Instead they died in vain
mostly to fill the pocketbooks of military arms makers and
contractors. Why is it that no one wants to admit that? Whenever
somebody in government makes a speech, words like freedom and
liberty are always used instead of words like needless or
mistake. If no one admits that Vietnam was a mistake, how can we
ever learn from it?

The problem with Nationalism is that many of the ideals that are
being preached by the nation’s leaders are not in the best
interests of the nation’s people. Yet disagreeing is considered
unpatriotic and at times even traitorous.

Why did the Germans ever listen to the ravings of Hitler? Some
of what he said made sense, but a lot of it was positively
insane. When the propaganda machine takes hold of the individual
he/she has trouble separating fact from fiction. Hitler only had
radio, newspapers, and magazines. We now have TV and the
Internet to confuse us with even more propaganda.

Currently we are involved in another unjust war, the Iraq war.
The words such as “freedom” and “liberty” are again being abused
by the government. Saddam Hussein was undoubtedly a cruel
dictator, but he was able to keep Iraq unified. He had no
nuclear weapons and no connection to 9/11 as the US government
now reluctantly admits. Iraq is a fanatically religious nation
deeply divided in their beliefs. By “freeing” it from Saddam’s
rule for a “democratic” rule, we sentenced the people to decades
of possible civil war. Some countries need to evolve at their
own pace, even if it means dictatorship. If left alone things
would have worked out for the better.

We all know that the real reason for invading Iraq was to gain
control of the Iraqi oil fields. But again we are told the
troops are fighting for our freedom as well as Iraqi freedom.
The US interfered where they had no business; they screwed up a
nation, needlessly sacrificed American and Iraqi lives, limited
American resources for dealing with natural disasters and wasted
the taxpayers’ money. What kind of freedom is that? The best
thing to do now is to end the war and bring the troops home.

Governments like to use the flag as an instrument for people to
proclaim their loyalty. Around this time (September 16th:
Mexican Independence Day) the streets of Chicago are full of
Mexicans in cars waving their flag. Most of them legally and
illegally immigrated to the US because they couldn’t earn a
decent living in Mexico. It puzzles me, if their country means
so much, why not remain there and try to fix its problems.
Patriotism is funny thing, people don’t even know or care why
they wave the flag, yet they still wave it. I assume, that for
Mexican immigrants, flag waving must only symbolize a sign of
their heritage and not an endorsement of their current
government.

Americans also like to wave the flag. During the Vietnam War
some would burn the flag in protest. The burners associated the
flag with the policies of the government. Others associated the
flag with a deeper symbolism: “One nation under God with liberty
and justice for all.” These types of patriots want to imprison
or even shoot anyone defacing the flag. Corporate aliens like to
make flag jeans, underwear and t-shirts as well as ash trays and
coffee cups, but it seems no one considers that type of thing
disrespectful.

Again we are faced with the flag problem because of the Iraq
war. My personal policy is this: Don’t wave, don’t burn. I
refuse to wave the flag ( or wear any flag t-shirts ) until
government policies change, but neither will I burn it so as not
to offend those that treat the flag as a sacred symbol.( I
wonder if t-shirts and coffee cups should be treated as sacred
symbols as well?)

I personally avoid nationalism by considering myself as a
citizen of the world. Since God is the creator, he must be the
leading citizen of the world. I support anything I feel is right
for my fellow man and reject the things that are against common
sense regardless of what the local government has to say. As
long as I’m alive the world is my country. I live in harmony
with a God that rejects all “holy wars” and “wars for corporate
profiteering”. There is no need for flags or anthems. I respect
all just laws and ignore those that I feel are unjust. Everyone
everywhere is a citizen of the world too. Why not accept it.
Stop thinking in the narrow sense of local politics and
religion. Think in terms of what is best for everyone. Together
we will be helping to build a better world regardless of where
we live.

The Democratic Party stands for a lot that we can be proud of. The North Fulton Democrats have outlined the Democratic Party Values and Principles For Which We Stand:

We are Pro-Constitution of the United States of America:

As horrific as 9/11 was, it did not repeal our constitution
The Patriot Act is impeding our constitutional civil rights

We are Pro-Democracy:
Even as we impose Democracy in foreign lands, we should not forego our own
Every Citizen should have the right to vote, and the right to have their vote counted

We are Pro-Civil Rights:
Equal Opportunity and Dignity for ALL Americans, without biases

We are Pro-Free Speech:
Putting down debate and discourse is unpatriotic!

We are Pro-Small Business and Individual Opportunity:
While maintaining an environment for ethical large corporate profitability

We are Pro-compassion and dignified assistance for the disadvantaged:

Do not preclude helping the needy because a few abuse the system
Help enable the disadvantaged to become self sufficient

We are Pro-Inclusiveness, and Anti-Divisiveness:
Strength of the Nation AND Strength of the Community

We are Pro-Religious Freedom and Separation of Church and State:

Following the guidelines of our founding fathers

We are Pro-International Leadership, lead by example and via “international alliances”:
Better through UN and NATO than aggressive unilateralism

We are Pro-Strong Military and Defense:
Support the people who defend our values with their life and limb
Develop military solutions in balance with the threats

We are Pro-Homeland Security:
Train, equip and fund our “first responders”

We are Pro-Fiscal Responsibility:
Mortgaging our future by uncontrolled deficit spending is bad policy

We are Pro-Women’s Health and Pro-Planned Parenthood:
Respect women’s rights
Respect the right for women and doctors to make health decisions without legal intervention

We are Pro-Civil Unions:
Dignity, Respect and equal opportunity without judgment

We are Pro-Environment:
For our health safety and enjoyment; our children’s health safety and enjoyment; and the rights of future generations!

We are Pro-Gun Control:
Controlled access to guns for self defense and sporting needs

We are Pro-Education:
We support a strong Public School system and access to higher education

We are Pro-Workers’ Rights:
We support the right to organize and negotiate for fair wages and a healthy and safe workplace, without the fear of losing your job

For more information about the North Fulton Democrats, please check our website at http://www.northfultondemocrats.org

The United States is one of the last remaining land empires. That it is made the butt of opprobrium and odium is hardly surprising, or unprecedented. Empires - Rome, the British, the Ottomans - were always targeted by the disgruntled, the disenfranchised and the dispossessed and by their self-appointed delegates, the intelligentsia.

Yet, even by historical standards, America seems to be provoking blanket repulsion.

The Pew Research Center published last December a report titled “What the World Thinks in 2002″. “The World”, was reduced by the pollsters to 44 countries and 38,000 interviewees. Two other surveys published last year - by the German Marshall Fund and the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations - largely supported Pew’s findings.

The most startling and unambiguous revelation was the extent of anti-American groundswell everywhere: among America’s NATO allies, in developing countries, Muslim nations and even in eastern Europe where Americans, only a decade ago, were lionized as much-adulated liberators.

“People around the world embrace things American and, at the same time, decry U.S. influence on their societies. Similarly, pluralities in most of the nations surveyed complain about American unilateralism.”- expounds the Pew report.

Yet, even this “embrace of things American” is ambiguous.

Violently “independent”, inanely litigious and quarrelsome, solipsistically provincial, and fatuously ignorant - this nation of video clips and sound bites, the United States, is often perceived as trying to impose its narcissistic pseudo-culture upon a world exhausted by wars hot and cold and corrupted by vacuous materialism.

Recent accounting scandals, crumbling markets, political scams, technological setbacks, and rising social tensions have revealed how rotten and inherently contradictory the US edifice is and how concerned are Americans with appearances rather than substance.

To religious fundamentalists, America is the Great Satan, a latter-day Sodom and Gomorrah, a cesspool of immorality and spiritual decay. To many European liberals, the United states is a throwback to darker ages of religious zealotry, pernicious bigotry, virulent nationalism, and the capricious misrule of the mighty.

According to most recent surveys by Gallup, MORI, the Council for Secular Humanism, the US Census Bureau, and others - the vast majority of Americans are chauvinistic, moralizing, bible-thumping, cantankerous, and trigger-happy. About half of them believe that Satan exists - not as a metaphor, but physically.

America has a record defense spending per head, a vertiginous rate of incarceration, among the highest numbers of legal executions and gun-related deaths. It is still engaged in atavistic debates about abortion, the role of religion, and whether to teach the theory of evolution.

According to a series of special feature articles in The Economist, America is generally well-liked in Europe, but less so than before. It is utterly detested by the Moslem street, even in “progressive” Arab countries, such as Egypt and Jordan. Everyone - Europeans and Arabs, Asians and Africans - thinks that “the spread of American ideas and customs is a bad thing.”

Admittedly, we typically devalue most that which we have formerly idealized and idolized.

To the liberal-minded, the United States of America reified the most noble, lofty, and worthy values, ideals, and causes. It was a dream in the throes of becoming, a vision of liberty, peace, justice, prosperity, and progress. Its system, though far from flawless, was considered superior - both morally and functionally - to any ever conceived by Man.

Such unrealistic expectations inevitably and invariably lead to disenchantment, disillusionment, bitter disappointment, seething anger, and a sense of humiliation for having been thus deluded, or, rather, self-deceived. This backlash is further exacerbated by the haughty hectoring of the ubiquitous American missionaries of the “free-market-cum-democracy” church.

Americans everywhere aggressively preach the superior virtues of their homeland. Edward K. Thompson, managing editor of “Life” (1949-1961) warned against this propensity to feign omniscience and omnipotence: “Life (the magazine) must be curious, alert, erudite and moral, but it must achieve this without being holier-than-thou, a cynic, a know-it-all, or a Peeping Tom.”

Thus, America’s foreign policy - i.e., its presence and actions abroad - is, by far, its foremost vulnerability.

According to the Pew study, the image of the Unites States as a benign world power slipped dramatically in the space of two years in Slovakia (down 14 percent), in Poland (-7), in the Czech Republic (-6) and even in fervently pro-Western Bulgaria (-4 percent). It rose exponentially in Ukraine (up 10 percent) and, most astoundingly, in Russia (+24 percent) - but from a very low base.

The crux may be that the USA maintains one set of sanctimonious standards at home while egregiously and nonchalantly flouting them far and wide. Hence the fervid demonstrations against its military presence in places as disparate as South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Saudi Arabia.

In January 2000, Staff Sergeant Frank J. Ronghi sexually molested, forcibly sodomized (”indecent acts with a child”) and then murdered an 11-years old girl in the basement of her drab building in Kosovo, when her father went to market to do some shopping. His is by no means the most atrocious link in a long chain of brutalities inflicted by American soldiers overseas. In all these cases, the perpetrators were removed from the scene to face justice - or, more often, a travesty thereof - back home.

Americans - officials, scholars, peacemakers, non-government organizations - maintain a colonial state of mind. Backward natives come cheap, their lives dispensable, their systems of governance and economies inherently inferior. The white man’s burden must not be encumbered by the vagaries of primitive indigenous jurisprudence. Hence America’s fierce resistance to and indefatigable obstruction of the International Criminal Court.

Opportunistic multilateralism notwithstanding, the USA still owes the poorer nations of the world close to $200 million - its arrears to the UN peacekeeping operations, usually asked to mop up after an American invasion or bombing. It not only refuses to subject its soldiers to the jurisdiction of the World Criminal Court - but its facilities to the inspectors of the Chemical Weapons Convention, its military to the sanctions of the (anti) land mines treaty and the provisions of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, and its industry to the environmental constraints of the Kyoto Protocol, the rulings of the World Trade Organization, and the rigors of global intellectual property rights.

Despite its instinctual unilateralism, the United States is never averse to exploiting multilateral institutions to its ends. It is the only shareholder with a veto power in the International Monetary Fund (IMF), by now widely considered to have degenerated into a long arm of the American administration. The United Nations Security Council, raucous protestations aside, has rubber-stamped American martial exploits from Panama to Iraq.

It seems as though America uses - and thus, perforce, abuses - the international system for its own, ever changing, ends. International law is invoked by it when convenient - ignored when importune.

In short, America is a bully. It is a law unto itself and it legislates on the fly, twisting arms and breaking bones when faced with opposition and ignoring the very edicts it promulgates at its convenience. Its soldiers and peacekeepers, its bankers and businessmen, its traders and diplomats are its long arms, an embodiment of this potent and malignant mixture of supremacy and contempt.

But why is America being singled out?

In politics and even more so in geopolitics, double standards and bullying are common. Apartheid South Africa, colonial France, mainland China, post-1967 Israel - and virtually every other polity - were at one time or another characterized by both. But while these countries usually mistreated only their own subjects - the USA does so also exterritorialy.

Even as it never ceases to hector, preach, chastise, and instruct - it does not recoil from violating its own decrees and ignoring its own teachings. It is, therefore, not the USA’s intrinsic nature, nor its self-perception, or social model that I find most reprehensible - but its actions, particularly its foreign policy.

America’s manifest hypocrisy, its moral talk and often immoral walk, its persistent application of double standards, irks and grates. I firmly believe that it is better to face a forthright villain than a masquerading saint. It is easy to confront a Hitler, a Stalin, or a Mao, vile and bloodied, irredeemably depraved, worthy only of annihilation. The subtleties of coping with the United States are far more demanding - and far less rewarding.

This self-proclaimed champion of human rights has aided and abetted countless murderous dictatorships. This alleged sponsor of free trade - is the most protectionist of rich nations. This ostensible beacon of charity - contributes less than 0.1% of its GDP to foreign aid (compared to Scandinavia’s 0.6%, for instance). This upright proponent of international law (under whose aegis it bombed and invaded half a dozen countries this past decade alone) - is in avowed opposition to crucial pillars of the international order.

Naturally, America’s enemies and critics are envious of its might and wealth. They would have probably acted the same as the United States, if they only could. But America’s haughtiness and obtuse refusal to engage in soul searching and house cleaning do little to ameliorate this antagonism.

To the peoples of the poor world, America is both a colonial power and a mercantilist exploiter. To further its geopolitical and economic goals from Central Asia to the Middle East, it persists in buttressing regimes with scant regard for human rights, in cahoots with venal and sometimes homicidal indigenous politicians. And it drains the developing world of its brains, its labour, and its raw materials, giving little in return.

All powers are self-interested - but America is narcissistic. It is bent on exploiting and, having exploited, on discarding. It is a global Dr. Frankenstein, spawning mutated monsters in its wake. Its “drain and dump” policies consistently boomerang to haunt it.

Both Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega - two acknowledged monsters - were aided and abetted by the CIA and the US military. America had to invade Panama to depose the latter and plans to invade Iraq for the second time to force the removal of the former.

The Kosovo Liberation Army, an American anti-Milosevic pet, provoked a civil war in Macedonia two years ago. Osama bin-Laden, another CIA golem, restored to the USA, on September 11, 2001 some of the materiel it so generously bestowed on him in his anti-Russian days.

Normally the outcomes of expedience, the Ugly American’s alliances and allegiances shift kaleidoscopically. Pakistan and Libya were transmuted from foes to allies in the fortnight prior to the Afghan campaign. Milosevic has metamorphosed from staunch ally to rabid foe in days.

This capricious inconsistency casts in grave doubt America’s sincerity - and in sharp relief its unreliability and disloyalty, its short term thinking, truncated attention span, soundbite mentality, and dangerous, “black and white”, simplism.

In its heartland, America is isolationist. Its denizens erroneously believe that the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave is an economically self-sufficient and self-contained continent. Yet, it is not what Americans trust or wish that matters to others. It is what they do. And what they do is meddle, often unilaterally, always ignorantly, sometimes forcefully.

Elsewhere, inevitable unilateralism is mitigated by inclusive cosmopolitanism. It is exacerbated by provincialism - and American decision-makers are mostly provincials, popularly elected by provincials. As opposed to Rome, or Great Britain, America is ill-suited and ill-equipped to micromanage the world.

It is too puerile, too abrasive, too arrogant - and it has a lot to learn. Its refusal to acknowledge its shortcomings, its confusion of brain with brawn (i.e., money or bombs), its legalistic-litigious character, its culture of instant gratification and one-dimensional over-simplification, its heartless lack of empathy, and bloated sense of entitlement - are detrimental to world peace and stability.

America is often called by others to intervene. Many initiate conflicts or prolong them with the express purpose of dragging America into the quagmire. It then is either castigated for not having responded to such calls - or reprimanded for having responded. It seems that it cannot win. Abstention and involvement alike garner it only ill-will.

But people call upon America to get involved because they know it rises to the challenge. America should make it unequivocally and unambiguously clear that - with the exception of the Americas - its sole interests rest in commerce. It should make it equally known that it will protect its citizens and defend its assets - if need be by force.

Indeed, America’s - and the world’s - best bet are a reversion to the Monroe and (technologically updated) Mahan doctrines. Wilson’s Fourteen Points brought the USA nothing but two World Wars and a Cold War thereafter. It is time to disengage.

About the Author

Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He is a columnist for Central Europe Review, PopMatters, and eBookWeb , a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory Bellaonline, and Suite101 .

Visit Sam’s Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com