Amir Taheri Oblivious that it is curtain time for him at the Elysee Palace, France's President Jacques Chirac is trying what could be his last throw of the diplomatic dice. Chirac wants to try his luck with the Khomeinist regime in Tehran in the hope of persuading it to reduce its nuclear ambitions, abandon Hezballah, and join France in creating a new "axis of independence". That is to say an anti-American bloc, in the Middle East.
Chirac's hopes to achieve "something dramatic" before next month, when he is to host an international conference on Lebanon in Paris. Still harbouring illusions about securing a third term as president, Chirac may be banking on a sensational diplomatic coup to help launch his bid in the teeth of opposition from his own neo-Gaullist party. His last few remaining friends are already trying to portray him as "the wise old man" of international politics, one who opposed "George W Bush's folly" of invading Iraq.
As Chirac sees things, over the next few weeks his diplomatic coup may achieve several objectives before the end of March when he has promised to tell everyone whether he wishes to seek re-election.
Here is how things are supposed to work out, according to Chirac's imagination: a senior French emissary, a former head of the country's secret services, goes to Tehran and obtains a one-on-one-with the "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi. The emissary, Jean-Calude Cousseran, tells the top mullah that the "Anglo-Saxons", that is to say the US and Britain, are preparing to take military action against the Islamic Republic. He will intimate some supposedly secret information on the subject, and will point to the US naval build up in the region as a sure sign that something is afoot.
Next, the French spook will ask Khamenehi to nominate a senior person, preferably former President Hashemi Rafsanjani who has always been a favorite of Chirac, to handle the nuclear issue on behalf of the Islamic Republic. This would marginalize the "loudmouth" President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who has bet his career, may be even his life, on taking on the Americans and defeating them on the battlefield.
Once the Khomeinists have offered encouraging gestures, Chirac would send his Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, the last of the Mohicans in the Chiraquian camp, to Tehran to clinch the deal. This would consist of an announcement by Tehran that it has agreed to suspend uranium enrichment until next September, the earliest date at which Iran's only nuclear power plant, at Hellieh, is supposed to become partially operational.
Chirac would then call for a postponement of the United Nations Security Council meeting, due in March, and call on the US and the UK to withdraw their naval forces from waterways close to Iran.
Chirac, the " grand old man of international politics" and the" champion of peace", would then announce his candidacy for the presidency and call on " French women and Frenchmen" to elect him so that he could save the world from another Bushian folly.
His few remaining friends already attack Nicholas Sarkzoy, the official candidate of the Gaullist family, as "Bush's poodle" and "a freemarketeer", a term that send shivers down many French spines. As the anti-Bush and anti-free market candidate, Chirac would then hope to capitalize on traditional French anti-American and anti-capitalist sentiments.
What chance does Chirac have of seeing his fantasy come true? The answer is none.
For more than two years poll after poll has shown that the French are simply fed up with Chirac and long to see him vanish as fast possible. In one recent poll only 17 per cent said he should be allowed to run for president again, if he so wishes.
Worse still, most of Chirac's oldest associates have abandoned him. Some, like former Premier Alain Juppe, would not even touch him with a barge pole. Others, like former Labor Minister Francois Fillon, find Chirac's idea of trying to get elected with the help of Tehran's mullahs simply obnoxious.
The problem with Chirac is that, despite his long political career, he has learned little from experience. Chirac was a Cabinet minister when Lyndon Johnson was President of the United States. Since then he has twice served as prime minister and won the presidency for two successive terms. In between, he served as Mayor of Paris for almost 20 years, a position he used as a platform for meddling in international affairs.
Chirac has fallen victim of his illusions on several occasions.
In 1981, he kicked a fuss about the destruction of Osirak, Saddam Hussein's nuclear program that the French had built under a contract signed by Chirac during his first tenure as prime minister in 1976. The gesture secured years of financial support by Saddam for the neo-Gaullist party but made moderate Arabs suspicious of Chirac.
In 1986, as prime minister, Chirac opposed the American bombing raid on Tripoli that ended Libyan support for international terror. Having denied American planes the use of French air space, Chirac had hoped to make Colonel Muammar Kaddhafi a life-long friend. In 2002, however, when Kaddhafi decided to switch sides he chose the British and the Americans, not the French under Chirac.
In 1986, Chirac allowed Wahid Gordji, then identified by French services as the coordinator of Tehran's terror networks in Europe, to avoid a police arrest warrant and fly out of Paris, where he had the cover of an attaché, back to Iran. In exchange, the mullahs promised not to order violent operations on French soil. That promise was soon broken. Paris experienced the worst terrorist campaign in its recent history, and Tehran's agents continued the "targeted killing" of dissidents on French soil.
Worse still, from Chirac's point of view, the mullahs did not invite the French companies at the high table of Iranian business. All the major oil contracts that the mullahs offered for the first time since seizing power in 1979 went to American companies. (When US companies refused, or were forced by Washington to withdraw, a few crumbs were thrown at the French.)
In 1991, Chirac opposed the forcible expulsion of Saddam Hussein from Iraq in the hope that the Baathist tide of "secularism and nationalism" would sweep away the pro-American "reactionary regimes" and cast France in the role of the principal Western ally of the Arabs. Once again, Chirac simply jumped on the wrong bus and ended up in an impasse.
Chirac's diplomacy never produced anything positive for France or for anyone else for that matter. However, it did encourage the worst tendencies of radical adventurers such as Saddam, Kaddhafi and Khomeini. Today, he is playing his old game of selling the illusion that the mullahs can hoodwink the rest of the world with help from Paris and thumb their nose at the Security Council. The mullahs would be mad to fall for Chirac's last, and pitiful, bamboozle. What Chirac is offering can only hasten another war in the Middle East.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/21/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
You won't believe this email that was sent to me -- it was sent by a Middle Easterner living in Wisconsin, who owns an AMERICAN BUSINESS -- what an arrogant jerk!!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is a Wisconson-based Company......
Below is an email exchange between a friend of mine's husband and a company that sells different types of mats. He is stationed in Iraq and was inquiring as to whether or not the company ships overseas. He wanted to get the troops better gear to sleep on.
This is the companies response -- I am floored as a military wife and as an American!!!
Please post this so that this company will hear us loud and clear that we do not stand for this.
Whatever your view is on this war - these troops are just following orders. Most are passionate about what they are doing. You can disagree with the war without disrespecting our troops!!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Tue Jan 16 3:25, contact@discount-mats.com sent:
To Whom it may concern:
Do you ship to APO addresses?
I'm in the 1st Cavalry Division stationed in Iraq and we are trying to order some mats but we are looking for who ships to APO first.
SGT Hess
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: contact@discount-mats.com [mailto:contact@discount-mats.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: Feedback: from discount-mats.com
SGT Hess,
We do not ship to APO addresses, and even if we did, we would NEVER ship to Iraq.
If you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of Iraq.
Bargain Suppliers
Discount-Mats.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WEBSITE INFO -- http://discount-mats.com/
Registrant:
>>> Faisal Khetani <<<
PO Box 270693
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53227
United States
Registered through: Teknon Domains
Domain Name: DISCOUNT-MATS.COM
Created on: 23-Mar-05
Expires on: 23-Mar-08
Last Updated on: 03-Mar-06
Administrative Contact:
Khetani, Faisal sportsfitness@gmail.com
3259 S.106th Street
West Allis, Wisconsin 53227
United States (phone deleted)
Technical Contact:
Khetani, Faisal sportsfitness@gmail.com
3259 S.106th Street
West Allis, Wisconsin 53227
United States (phone deleted)
#6
I am telling you we should take these f*ckin pansies as they step up and pit them with the guys we have down at Gitmo. Its a win win if they can win the Jihadi's over with love and hugs great if instead reality rules and Jihadi's get em a new Infidel toy to play with and we lose a pansie seditionist.
I would start with thier leadership most all of Hollywood - large portion of Dem Party - and then work my way down. I would play cum-by-ya in the background and sell tickets on the internet too.
#7
Personally, I think it is shameful an American company will not do business with American troops, but allow me to take a contrarian position:
1) DiscountMats.com is a private business and is under no obligation to sell or ship its products anywhere.
2) In America, opinions are not illegal, although if you are stupid, your opinions are probably stupid too.
However
3) we are under no obligation to do business with these mooks
4) the Internet is a powerful platform for disseminating information. The more people that know about this, the more point #3 kicks in.
#9
What Steve S said (we of the Army of Steve do stick together). Please don't sign these mooks up for gay pr0n, that would be wrong. But let's make sure the word gets out so that Mr. Faisal ends up in Chapter 7 real soon now.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/21/2007 12:42 Comments ||
Top||
#10
CAIR lawsuits against people choosing not to do business with them in 5... 4... 3...
#13
And set your stopwatches now for for CAIR to be whining about those nasty, bigoted racist Americans in 3...2...1....
Oh, yeah, sign these people up for tons of pharma spam. Oh, and Euro lottery spam would be a nice touch, too.
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/21/2007 11:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"A doctrinaire liberal disciplined enough to pass himself off as a blank slate with sappy soft-focus multiculti bona fides"
Perfect. This describes Mr. Kumbaya of the 21st century to a tee.
Let us not forget, however, the role the MSM will play in keeping the appearance of that slate clean.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
01/21/2007 16:15 Comments ||
Top||
#2
No, six months from now he'll be old news, and the ankle-biters will be tagging him with some disparaging meme, digging around for dirt--they way they do with anybody in the public eye. Remember how they loved Kerry, but couldn't resist publishing those pictures of Lurch making an ass of himself?
Posted by: James ||
01/21/2007 19:19 Comments ||
Top||
#3
America isn't about to elect a black man as president. Therefore, we should help Obama to win ther nomination.
Or do you think you know something about Americans I don't know?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/21/2007 19:31 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Year 2014-2020, Russia-China and "War agz America and only America is not only possible but desired" > IOW, LIBERAL ALTERNATISTS-CENTRISTS UP FRONT, RINO's/FASCISTS-for-STALINISM TOTALITARIANS IN REAR. OH THE HUMANITY. D *** NG IT.
1965. 1999. Thirty-four years. No change of thinking. We are consistent and dogged. Thats a quality generally found among the asinine population
Lets get this straight. Every state needs an army which means the army is a public good; which also means no objective person can be opposed to the army per se. The problem begins when an army decides that it wants to have a state. The categories of fair and foul go haywire at that point and the politics of a state is turned into one long walpurgesnacht.
I never knew that a remote and somewhat forgotten city of Southern Punjab, Bahawalpur, would come alive on these pages. The last time it got regular projection was when friend N, now Lady N, wrote Letter from Bahawalpur. But that was years ago and Bahawalpur had to wait for the recent exchange (Dr Siddiqa, angry letter, my column, a spate of angry letters!) to emerge on the national map.
The other good thing that has happened is the letting out of a secret (actually not so secret in hack-business) there is a full stable of bhanjas in this country who jump at the drop of a hat to defend the mamas.
NEW YORK - Gather around kids, it's time to run a reality check on this week's leftist myths and spin.
Myth: "Second Hanging Also Went Awry, Iraq Tape Shows" (New York Times headline, Jan. 16, 2007)
Reality: This headline refers to the hanging of Saddam Hussein's half-brother who was the former head of Hussein's secret police. It also conveniently implies Saddam's own execution was botched. The guy's dead. Sounds like a success to me.
Thanks to a cellphone camcorder and YouTube, Iraqis also have proof he isn't coming back. In an interview with PBS' NewsHour, President George W. Bush says the executions were "fumbled" and prove the new Iraqi government "has still got some maturation to do." No kidding. In a mature democracy, we call this kind of thing "DVD bonus footage," not a mistake.
When Saddam's brother was inadvertently decapitated (thereby making him an obvious half-brother) during the execution, the New York Times whined: "The hangmen's calculations of weight, gravity and the momentum needed to snap their necks ... appeared, in Mr. Ibrahim's case, to have gone seriously awry."
Bush should have just said that the Iraqis could use some better math textbooks. Would great former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, for example, have lamented a genocidal maniac morphing into a Pez dispenser as his final trick? Somehow, I doubt that a woman who said, "I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air," would have cared what her detractors thought. (When David Beckham brings his "goldenballs" to the USA, maybe he can also bring some for Bush?)
Myth: Cuba's health care system is one of the best in the world.
Reality: This relentless mantra of the left has been endlessly propagated by various media reports and by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who called the system "superb" in a 2002 address from the University of Havana.
In recent days, we've been treated to Cuban government footage of Fidel Castro doing seniors aerobics in a track suit. By seniors aerobics, I mean talking on the phone while looking pale. Presumably, that's supposed to convince us he's in great shape, and hasn't just become a fan of Ali G and London's white trash "chav" subculture, for which a track suit is the official uniform.
Personally, I'm holding out for some Jack Palance-style one-arm pushups while he holds up today's paper. But while the world is busy sweatin' with Fidel on nightly newscasts, Britain's Daily Mail reports Castro is being treated in Spain, by his Spanish surgeon. I suppose there's no point white-knuckling it with the Comrade Care back home if you don't have to.
Myth: The Democrats have a plan for Iraq.
Reality: The Democrats have a plan for Iraq, much like the slob sitting on the couch hoovering Doritos has a plan to win the Super Bowl. If Democrats were really serious about opposing Bush, they would introduce an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill. Otherwise, all this talk of resolutions and oversight is nothing more than political Masterputz Theatre.
You can't start scrubbing down the walls while the kiddies are still flinging around spaghetti. Bush has to make one last push with this latest troop increase to speed up terrorist liquidation before liberals can fulfil their dream of having soldiers engage in kitten petting and Iraqi police hand-holding. Everyone knows that's for the UN to screw up later.
Besides, how hard can it really be to train Iraqi police? Just point a shotgun in the general direction of the problem and let 'er rip.
"Pez dispenser" *snicker* The woman has a way with words.
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/21/2007 15:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
ROFLMAO!!! :-D
This is GREAT!
It should be run in every newspaper around the world, so it won't. Bummer.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/21/2007 15:46 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Yes, Frank G,The Toronto Sun!
They have a number of columnists with heads on right and writing. They also include a number of columnists that are wing-nuts. As contrast. And illustration. And education. The Sun includes them all and lets their readers sort them out though the editorial helps guide the less gifted in figuring out which is which.
It makes for the most gut-busting letters to the editor (complete with snarky responses) and a true snapshot of where da peoples mind is at. I love the juxtaposition of the views of the columnists. Spot the Patsy is game at the Sun.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
01/21/2007 17:03 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Myth: Cuba's health care system is one of the best in the world.
The Cuban medical system has existed in a state of near collapse since 1990. Luckily they do allow polio vaccine and understand the dangers of human waste in drinking water.
There has been in these pages a controversy concerning Islam and other religions. Adverting, however, specifically to Saad Ahmad's letter (Sept. 6), wherein he impugns papal remarks and asserts, "Islam's invitation to mankind is primarily on rational grounds and not through force," I must say nothing can be farther from truth certainly from the point of view of India's experience.
With the advent of Islamic intrusion in the beginning of the seventh century, the glorious period of ancient India ends, and with it, the British author Arthur Basham appropriately closes the pages of his book The Wonder That was India. The medieval period of India's history, the Islamic period, is the darkest and bloodiest period with its lurid pages marked by mass murders of Hindus and other Kafirs, as the Muslim conquerors contemptuously called them.
Muslims were attracted first by ancient India's fabulous wealth and, even more strongly, by their religious zeal to damage and destroy the temples of the Hindus. By one account, they destroyed at least 20,000 temples. Even today many of the damaged temples may be seen across the length and breadth of India. Just a few examples: Sultan Mahamud of Ghazni "vowed to wage a holy war against the infidels of India" and invaded it seventeen times from 1000 to 1026 and sacked and plundered and damaged the famous temple of Somnath in Gujarat. Ala-ud-din of Khalji plundered the temples in the southern part of India. Aurangzebe, the most bigoted of the most bigoted anywhere in the world, built Jam-I-Masjid in the center of the holy city of Mathura.
As for their cruelty, there was no end. Not only did they ravage or raze to the ground some temples, but also they even erected in Delhi a monument, still standing today, with an inscription on it, which says, from how many temples its materials had been gathered. What is even more unforgivable is what Muslims did to some of the oldest and most sacred temples of Hinduism in Kashi (Benares), Ayodhya, and Mathura. They built a dome of rock adjoining the holy shrine in each place leaving only a narrow footpath on the side for pilgrims to approach the shrine. One wonders what that divine logic is that impels them to choose and establish a place as their own sacred in exactly the same place where another and much older religion had been holding it holy a thousand and more years even before the birth of Islam. How could a place in distant India, a thousand and more miles away from Mecca, become holy for them too? If anyone wants a modern example of this Islamic intolerance, they need only to look at what happened to the colossal Buddha statue in the Bamiyan Valley of Afghanistan in March of 2001.
As for force and cruelty remorselessly used by the Muslim conquerors, here are some examples. Almost all of them (with the exception of Akbar) offered Zimma contract, which said you either become a Muslim or pay the tax called Jizya. Some of the Muslim kings did not offer even that choice. It was Islam or death. Thus, famous Sikh Gurus Guru Nanak, Guru Arjun, and Guru Teg Bahadur were tortured and executed. Hindu Brahmins were put to death for publicly practicing their religion. The Bahamni King Ahmad Shah massacred 20,000 people and celebrated a feast. King Babur records in his Memoirs an instance of the wholesale butchery of Hindu prisoners in front of his royal pavilion. Prithvi Raj, a Hindu prince who lost the battle, was beheaded on the battlefield. Kashmir was conquered in the 14th century, and Hindu conversion followed. The most celebrated Kashmiri, Jawaharlal Nehru, mentions in his writings how people in the 19th century desired to return to their ancestors' religion. So the Hindu king asked the Pandits (Brahmins) to reconvert them, but the Brahmins refused because there was no mechanism by which they could do that. Hinduism honestly believes that all religions are equally valid paths to the same Supreme Being, and, therefore, no one can become a Hindu except be born one.
These are some of the things that refute the claim that Islam does not force but seeks conversion through understanding and rationality. For other things, I recommend a reading of Muslim writer Ibn Warraq's book Why I am Not a Muslim (Prometheus Books, 1995).
#1
One wonders what that divine logic is that impels them to choose and establish a place as their own sacred in exactly the same place where another and much older religion had been holding it holy a thousand and more years even before the birth of Islam. How could a place in distant India, a thousand and more miles away from Mecca, become holy for them too?
Well, they succeeded with Jerusalem and the Dome of the Rock so they just replicated this elsewhere.
Some Hindus tried to reclaim Ayodya, the mythical birthplace of the Hindu god Rama, demolishing the disused mosque on the site of the destroyed temple but that didn't go too well.
Maybe Jews will be more sucessful at taking back the Temple ?
Posted by: john ||
01/21/2007 13:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Well, they succeeded with Jerusalem and the Dome of the Rock so they just replicated this elsewhere.
IIUC, phagocyting the previous religion's places of worhsip is SOP, as it symbolizes the superiority of islam, the One True Religion that both pre-dates and replaces all other "false religions"; that's why the "ownership" of Jerusalem is so important, despite the light intrinsic muslim religious value of this town, not mentioned in the coran or where pilgimages go : to assert the superiority of islam over judaism and christinaity, kinda like a dog p*ssing over the marks left by other dogs to show it's its territory now, and he's the alpha male.
After defeating fascists and communists, can the West now defeat the Islamists?
On the face of it, its military preponderance makes victory seem inevitable. Even if Tehran acquires a nuclear weapon, Islamists have nothing like the military machine the Axis deployed in World War II, nor the Soviet Union during the Cold War. What do the Islamists have to compare with the Wehrmacht or the Red Army? The SS or Spetznaz? The Gestapo or the KGB? Or, for that matter, to Auschwitz or the gulag?
Yet, more than a few analysts, including myself, worry that it's not so simple. Islamists (defined as persons who demand to live by the sacred law of Islam, the Sharia) might in fact do better than the earlier totalitarians. They could even win. That's because, however strong the Western hardware, its software contains some potentially fatal bugs. Three of them - pacifism, self-hatred, complacency - deserve attention.
Pacifism: Among the educated, the conviction has widely taken hold that "there is no military solution" to current problems, a mantra applied in every Middle East problem - Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the Kurds, terrorism and the Arab-Israeli conflict. But this pragmatic pacifism overlooks the fact that modern history abounds with military solutions. What were the defeats of the Axis, the United States in Vietnam, or the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, if not military solutions?
Self-hatred: Significant elements in several Western countries - especially the United States, Great Britain and Israel - believe their own governments to be repositories of evil and see terrorism as just punishment for past sins. This "we have met the enemy and he is us" attitude replaces an effective response with appeasement, including a readiness to give up traditions and achievements.
Osama bin Laden celebrates by name such leftists as Robert Fisk and William Blum. Self-hating Westerners have an out-sized importance due to their prominent role as shapers of opinion in universities, the media, religious institutions and the arts. They serve as the Islamists' auxiliary mujahideen.
Complacency: The absence of an impressive Islamist military machine imbues many Westerners, especially on the left, with a feeling of disdain. Whereas conventional war - with its men in uniform, its ships, tanks and planes, and its bloody battles for land and resources - is simple to comprehend, the asymmetric war with radical Islam is elusive. Box cutters and suicide belts make it difficult to perceive this enemy as a worthy opponent. With John Kerry, too many dismiss terrorism as a meRe: "nuisance."
Islamists deploy formidable capabilities, however, that go far beyond small-scale terrorism:
A potential access to weapons of mass destruction that could devastate Western life.
A religious appeal that provides deeper resonance and greater staying power than the artificial ideologies of fascism or communism.
An impressively conceptualized, funded and organized institutional machinery that successfully builds credibility, goodwill and electoral success.
An ideology capable of appealing to Muslims of every size and shape, from Lumpenproletariat to privileged, from illiterates to Ph.D.s, from the well-adjusted to psychopaths, from Yemenis to Canadians. The movement almost defies sociological definition.
A nonviolent approach - what I call "lawful Islamism" - that pursues Islamification through educational, political and religious means, without recourse to illegality or terrorism. Lawful Islamism is proving successful in Muslim-majority countries like Algeria and Muslim-minority ones like the United Kingdom.
A huge number of committed cadres. If Islamists constitute 10 percent to 15 percent of the Muslim population worldwide, they number some 125 million to 200 million persons, or a far greater total than all the fascists and communists, combined, who ever lived.
Pacifism, self-hatred and complacency are lengthening the war against radical Islam and causing undue casualties. Only after absorbing catastrophic human and property losses will left-leaning Westerners likely overcome this triple affliction and confront the true scope of the threat. The civilized world will likely then prevail, but belatedly and at a higher cost than need have been.
Should Islamists get smart and avoid mass destruction, but instead stick to the lawful, political, nonviolent route, and should their movement remain vital, it is difficult to see what will stop them.
Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and author of "Miniatures." He is currently teaching at Pepperdine University.
#1
Only after absorbing catastrophic human and property losses will left-leaning Westerners likely overcome this triple affliction and confront the true scope of the threat. The civilized world will likely then prevail, but belatedly and at a higher cost than need have been.
So, is he saying that we should beat the living crap out of the leftists now so we can focus on the real enemy without distractions ?
#3
Commies + Maoist self-proclaimed "still Communists-Stalinists-Marxists" whom suppor Islamists/Radical Groups. the proper question is CAN THE WEST NOW DEFEAT COMMUNISTS-MAOISTS + COMMIE-SUPPOR ISLAMISTS!? As said long ago, CLINTONIAN DIALECTICISM > FASCIST = RADICAL ISLMAIST > both LIMITED COMMUNISTS, ergo " After defeating [Secular]Limited Communists and [Secular] full-fledged Communists, can the West now defeat God-based Communists. AND SINCE CLINTONISM > WORLD IS SOCIALIST, ergo CAN THE WEST DEFEAT FORM(S) OF SOCIALISM, i.e. CAN THE WEST DEFEAT = DESTROY ITSELF??? CLINTONISM, then, is consistent wid anti-USA/West Asymmetric Warfare where the greatest damage is what a superior Nation-Society does unto ITSELF, notsomuch by the enemy.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Oblivious that it is curtain time for him at the Elysee Palace, France's President Jacques Chirac is trying what could be his last throw of the diplomatic dice. Chirac wants to try his luck with the Khomeinist regime in Tehran in the hope of persuading it to reduce its nuclear ambitions, abandon Hezballah, and join France in creating a new "axis of independence". That is to say an anti-American bloc, in the Middle East.
