Actually I lived here from 1974-1981 and 1991-now. I did get something of
value from these papers. It was a coupon worth a dollar off of a box of
cereal.

If you like people like peter singer, you'll really enjoy the atlanta rags.


-----Original Message-----
From: Barber, Kenneth L. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CNN Breaking News (fwd)

 if you believe this i'll sell you some ocean front property in new mexico.
the atlanta urineal and constipation is hardly a good source of information.
i have lived here for many years.

-----Original Message-----
From: Magenta Raine
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 10/10/2002 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: CNN Breaking News (fwd)

I just read this article, and it is really scary.  Now this war makes
sense,
(note I said it makes sense, not that I agree with it. )

Please read carefully.
Mag

> http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html<x-html>
>
> The President's Real Goal in Iraq
> By JAY BOOKMAN
> Atlanta Journal-Constitution
> 9/29/02
>
> The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that
the
> Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has
always
> seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that
smart
> people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on
such
> flimsy evidence.
>
> The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on;
something
> was missing.
>
> In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into
place.
> As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about
weapons of
> mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.
>
> This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence
of
the
> United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole
responsibility
> and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a
plan
> 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the
United
> States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it
means
> becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed
we
> were.
>
> Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For
example,
why
> does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from
Iraq
> once Saddam is toppled?
>
> Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States
will
> create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate
the
> Middle East, including neighboring Iran.
>
> In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed
aside
> that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other
> nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II
> ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the
same
> in Iraq.
>
> And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and
> deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even
if
it
> worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of
> American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did
not
> stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.
>
> Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of
> brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush
> administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what
they
> call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the
> American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.
>
> Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in
> which each administration outlines its approach to defending the
country.
> The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant
> departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes
largely to
> the attacks of Sept. 11.
>
> To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a
newly
> aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack
> against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls
> "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that
> suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the
document
> asserts.
>
> It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of
> "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign
> responsibilities."
>
> In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and
economic
> domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international
treaty
> or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark
expansion
> of our global military presence.
>
> "The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond
> Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as
> temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S.
> troops."
>
> The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however,
> because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly
not
> inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same
> language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the
New
> American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by
the
> thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a
global
> empire.
>
> "At no time in history has the international security order been as
> conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. stated
two
> years ago. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and
enhance
> this 'American peace.' "
>
> Familiar themes
>
> Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush
defense
> policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried
to
> accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of
the
> anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile
defense
> system. The administration has taken that course.
>
> It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce
Pax
> Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending
from
3
> percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next
year,
> the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379
billion,
> almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.
>
> It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its
expanded
> obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense
programs
> as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message being
preached
> by Rumsfeld and others.
>
> It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in
targeting
> the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by
many
of
> our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S. House gave the
> Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust
> Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.
>
> That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly
> surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed
to
> the 2000 report.
>
> Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is
> undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's
Office
> of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are
> members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis
Libby
> is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is
comptroller
> for the Defense Department.
>
> 'Constabulary duties'
>
> Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of
the
> project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were
in
> drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly
> identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets,
well
> before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their
report,
> they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and
Iraq,
> "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the
force
> requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove
these
> regimes from power."
>
> To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be
required
> to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as
policeman
> of the world -- and says that such actions "demand American political
> leadership rather than that of the United Nations."
>
> To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to
> challenge the United States, the report advocates a much larger
military
> presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130
> nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.
>
> More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in
the
> Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast
Asia,
> where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the
> mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush
administration
> rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well
as
> our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in
> Colombia.
>
> The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier
document,
> drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also
> envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing
its
> will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When
> leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much
criticism
> that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President
Bush.
>
> Effect on allies
>
> The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was
drafted
> by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.
>
> The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense.
>
> One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right
to
act
> as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the
> background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and
> American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their
> wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.
>
> Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an
> influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served
as
> co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project -- acknowledges that
likelihood.
>
> "If [our allies] want a free ride, and they probably will, we can't
stop
> that," he says. But he also argues that the United States, given its
unique
> position, has no choice but to act anyway.
>
> "You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."
>
> Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we are as
a
> nation, and in how we operate in the international arena. Candidate
Bush
> certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something that
he
or
> others have dared to discuss honestly with the American people. To the
> contrary, in his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly
> advocated a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to
appeal to
> voters leery of military intervention.
>
> For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as
empire,
> understanding its connotations. But they also argue that it would be
naive
> and dangerous to reject the role that history has thrust upon us.
Kagan,
> for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would
> establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq.
>
> "I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a
major
> concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time.
That
> will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we
have
> economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply.
If
we
> have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."
>
> Costly global commitment
>
> Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will
produce
> other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for nations such as
Iran
> and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive position, puts it rather
> gently. If a regime change were to take place in Iraq, other nations
> pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the message that
having
> them . . . is attracting attention that is not favorable and is not
> helpful," he says.
>
> Kagan is more blunt.
>
> "People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he
notes.
> "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we
> started blowing things up."
>
> The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we
spent
> $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations
> combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion.
In
> other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be
more
> than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest
competitor.
>
> The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it
has
> driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end
of
the
> Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire
was
> essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of
some,
> we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American
people
> have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.
>
> Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those
> advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new
> president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really
debating
> the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to
come.
>
> Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and
> international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary
to
> take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global
> dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?
>
> If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision
knowingly,
as
> a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan
and
> others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.
>
> That's what this is about.
>
> and it's based on:
>
> "Rebuilding America's Defenses," a 2000 report by the Project for the
New
> American Century, listed 27 people as having attended meetings or
> contributed papers in preparation of the report. Among them are six
who
> have since assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the
Bush
> administration. And the report seems to have become a blueprint for
Bush's
> foreign and defense policy.
> http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
>
> Paul Wolfowitz Political science doctorate from University of Chicago
and
> dean of the international relations program at Johns Hopkins
University
> during the 1990s. Served in the Reagan State Department, moved to the
> Pentagon during the first Bush administration as undersecretary of
defense
> for policy. Sworn in as deputy defense secretary in March 2001.
>
> John Bolton Yale Law grad who worked in the Reagan administration as
an
> assistant attorney general. Switched to the State Department in the
first
> Bush administration as assistant secretary for international
organization
> affairs. Sworn in as undersecretary of state for arms control and
> international security, May 2001.
>
> Eliot Cohen Harvard doctorate in government who taught at Harvard and
at
> the Naval War College. Now directs strategic studies at Johns Hopkins
and
> is the author of several books on military strategy. Was on the
Defense
> Department's policy planning staff in the first Bush administration
and is
> now on Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board.
>
> I. Lewis Libby Law degree from Columbia (Yale undergrad). Held
advisory
> positions in the Reagan State Department. Was a partner in a
Washington
law
> firm in the late '80s before becoming deputy undersecretary of defense
for
> policy in the first Bush administration (under Dick Cheney). Now is
the
> vice president's chief of staff.
>
> Dov Zakheim Doctorate in economics and politics from Oxford
University.
> Worked on policy issues in the Reagan Defense Department and went into
> private defense consulting during the 1990s. Was foreign policy
adviser to
> the 2000 Bush campaign. Sworn in as undersecretary of defense
(comptroller)
> and chief financial officer for the Pentagon, May 2001.
>
> Stephen Cambone Political science doctorate from Claremont Graduate
School.
> Was in charge of strategic defense policy at the Defense Department in
the
> first Bush administration. Now heads the Office of Program, Analysis
and
> Evaluation at the Defense Department
> __
>
>
> **********************************************
> This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally
privileged.
> If you received this message in error or are not the intended
recipient,
you
> should destroy the e-mail message and any attachments or copies, and
you
are
> prohibited from retaining, distributing disclosing or using any
information
> contained herein.  Please inform us of the erroneous delivery by
return
> e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation.
> **********************************************
>



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you use Ebay to shop online, you can shop Ebay from my website!
www.itilink.com/traine.iti