Well, you should be proud of your home state former US President; he's just
won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to bring about peace through
mediations, etc.  Yep, Jimmy Carter's finally got the recognition he so
richly deserves.  I think it's fantastic.

Kat



----- Original Message -----
From: "Barber, Kenneth L." <[log in to unmask]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.c-palsy
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: CNN Breaking News (fwd)


> 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