Does anyone care?
William Mark Hardiker | 28.10.2003 08:49 | Analysis | London
DOES ANYONE CARE?
William Hardiker 28/10/03
“How did we get here?” “Does anyone care?”
In a speech to Congress on July 11 2003, Republican Representative Ron Paul asked the house these rhetorical questions. Being so long overdue, they surely caused much unease. Much averting of eyes, and scrutiny of fingernails.
For why have such crucially important questions relating to the conduct of the post September 11 Bush Administration not been raised, analyzed, discussed and debated exhaustedly? Not surprisingly, it was the mighty dollar that caused alarm bells to ring after Senator Paul pointed out that the US national debt is increasing at a rate greater than half a trillion dollars a year and the debt limit was recently raised by the Bush team to a calculator blowing $984 billion. Total US government obligations are $43 trillion, whilst US household’s net worth is just over $40.6 trillion.
In the first fully fledged outburst of high level government dissent against the Neo-Conservative’s radical and dangerous agenda, Mr. Paul stated that which has been a long time coming; two years to be precise. The time it has taken for many Americans to recover from the psychological damage wreaked by the September 11 attacks, which transformed the collective American psyche from one of national invincibility, to one of national vulnerability. “Ideas”, he exclaimed, “have consequences”. And “bad ideas, have bad consequences”. Let us hope that Mr.Wolfowitz and Vice President Chenney were taking notes.
There is cause for optimism in what appears to be a slow dawn of awakening within the United States as to who has been calling the shots within George Bush’s administration, and a beginning of questions being raised in relation to the response to the events of September 11, 2001. Like the death of a loved one, a period of mourning is required before, hopefully, the reality of the new state of affairs, minus the deceased is accepted. Sometimes the period is short lived, other times the wound never heals. This seems to have been the case after the world trade centre attacks. As the wounds heal, perhaps also there will be an emergence of common sense.
Only now, with questions such as those asked by Senator Paul, does the country appear to be emerging from a ‘twilight reality’ of fearful vulnerability, insecurity, suspicion and potential danger from the reality that is the world beyond the confines of the United States of America. That it has taken such a long time can be explained innocently on the one hand because of the surprise, audacity and proportions of the tragedy, and on the other because of devious political manipulation that ensured the event could be exploited to implement an agenda that otherwise would be rejected; not only by the victims and the American public, but that the world in general who unanimously supported and endorsed a radical policy of retribution rather than demanding a criminal investigation. The people cannot to be blamed, for they are but the innocent victims of ruthless technocrats, elites and politicians who understand all to well the power of “the politics of fear”.
Between the attacks themselves and Senator Paul’s questions to Congress, not all were stricken by what might be considered posttraumatic shock syndrome. Busy hands have been at work wreaking much havoc within the halls of power. Senator Paul was perhaps amongst the “outsiders” to regain the full use of his faculties, however the real ‘wake up’ call had more to do with philosophical concerns and how they have driven policy over the past two years. Certain individuals, who are now well known as the Neo-Conservatives planned a ‘grand strategy’ for America’s future into the 21st century which only required an impetus to implement with majority approval, was ready and waiting for the opportune time. The fact that the people, that is, you and I, were neither consulted nor the subject opened to debate, and because of George Bush’s declared love and affection for ‘freedom of speech and opinion’ allows us all a pretty clear indication of how democracy works in the United States of America.
Now that the US military is firmly bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is new talk as to whose will be the next head to roll. Iran? Syria? North Korea? At this juncture, Senator Paul’s speech becomes interesting and I am sure all sat forward in their seats in anticipation of the answers he would provide his own questions, “how did all this transpire?” “Why did the government do it?” “Why haven’t people objected?” “Does anyone care?” All questions that I have been asking myself continuously since the dust settled in Lower Manhattan two years ago. Not surprisingly, these questions hung in the rarefied atmosphere unanswered. The end of “major combat operations” in Iraq, or “the war that nearly ended” and the continuing return home to the US of young marines in body bags is dampening much of the war euphoria which reached it’s crescendo and erupted in joy when the statues of Saddam were toppled (no analogy intended, but after all it has been said that war is but the deadly games of grown boys) and the desire for revenge against a non visible, abstract enemy began to dissipate. Despite the efforts of the Pentagon and defense Department to create and apply a public persona to an unseen “enemy” that consumed so much attention, tax dollars and lives, the US is facing an increasingly difficult task in “perpetuating the myth” that vast, highly organized and efficient terror organizations are threatening US homeland security and global peace and stability. The inability of government and military to stifle the flow of non-corporate news and enormous amounts of independent information from reaching huge audiences throughout the world via the world wide web handicaps the corporate media propaganda machine in accomplishing that which it’s sponsors (the US government) would hope to achieve. Though certainly a great proportion of the American public are content to apathetically absorb and espouse whatever nonsense they are told to believe by corporate media giants such as “CNN”, the “Wall Street Journal” and “New York Times”.
Now that Senator Paul had the full attention of Congress he went on to answer his own questions. “We got here because ideas have consequences,” he said. “And bad ideas have bad consequences”. Certainly a reasonable assessment despite the ambiguity and obviousness to all other than the mesmerized American establishment and majority public opinion. However let us keep in mind that these congressmen and women are the returned “posse”, the sated “lynch mob” that went out after Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein with fire in their belly and hatred in their minds. But the questions are finally being asked and for that we should all rejoice. Whose philosophic ideas drove us to this point? Let us reject them before it is too late and decide upon another set of intellectual parameters. Worthy aspirations surely. But an enormous request of the United States of America.
Those amongst us “in the know”. Those who ignored the corporate media coverage of events since September 11, 2001 have long been aware of who is pulling the strings within the Bush Administration and “mad dog” Rumsfeld’s Pentagon. There is abundant evidence exposing those whose influence, ‘political clout’ and extreme right wing fundamentalist agenda which George .W. Bush’s revivalist God has instructed him to embrace and implement as official US foreign policy. These are the Neo-Conservatives. The remnants of President Ronald Reagan’s administration and their re-vitalized 21st century prodigies. These constitute a powerful voice within the American establishment and have infiltrated all facets of government, society and the media. They are the ‘think tank institutes’ and ‘defense policy boards’; the so-called experts of Washington and New York called upon for comment by pro government media and who are by no means backwards in coming forward to present their opinions perspectives and prejudices in regards to what they consider in America’s national interest and self-appointed role in the 21st century, being as it is, the solitary and unchallengeable super-power. Amongst them are the pro-Israeli lobbyists, (the powerful American Zionist organizations seeking a greater Israel whilst pursuing a course of murder, expulsion, subjugation, dislocation, ethnic cleansing indignation, expulsion whilst denying basic humanitarian conventions of compassion, dignity and respect for the indigenous Palestinian population) the priority being US global geo-strategic and economic primacy. An American President such as George Bush needs all the advice he can get, and because his key advisors are Neo-Conservatives we can expect to see the strategy of the PNAC (Project for a new American century) implemented as laid out in the mission statement now widely available. Key words that best encapsulate their ideology are; militarism, Zionism, domination, patriotism, racism, global hegemony, empire and peacemaker. All condoned under the maxim; “perpetual war for perpetual peace”
After September 11, shell-shocked Democrats lost course to a large extent and virtually abdicated their responsibility as an influential organization. No policy was too severe or extreme in the face of such audacious attacks at the heart of the US establishment. During this period of understandable political disarray, the Neo-Conservatives lay down the doctrine they had been sitting on waiting for just such an opportunity to present itself. Conspiracy theorists have made much of the timing of these events and certainly after studying the order of events as they occurred after the first airliner hit twin tower number one, there is much that remains questionable in relation to who knew what and when. The American public and the world in general were caught up in a patriotic fervor that manifested itself in anti-Islamic sentiment and, to the delight of the neo-cons happily endorsed military adventurism was enthusiastically endorsed and resulted in the high altitude bombing of Afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq, a weak and harmless state without the ability nor will to again fight the US aggressor.
The affect of Neo-Conservative policy as adopted by the bush team in the past twelve months has seen the demise of medical, personal and financial privacy. Free speech and the fourth Amendment have been under relentless attack. Policing the world, nation building and regime change issues are popular campaign targets. Yet none of this happened by chance. The Neo-Cons have diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their agenda in a policy paper in the 1990’s entitled “Rebuilding America’s defenses for a new century” In it they outlined they’re doctrine; Geo-strategic primacy achieved by “preventive” war. These people are not your everyday conservatives dedicated to limited constitutional government. They are ruthless, extremist, militant, Christian fundamentalists with a clear vision of what they perceive to be America’s role in the 21st century. The unchallengeable superpower, with the means, the will and determination to preserve global geo-strategic primacy and ward off any future challengers at whatever cost and by all available means.
Who are these people? Principals include Dick Chenney, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristoll, Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan Michael Ledeen, Donald Rumsfeld, James Woolsey, Bill Bennett and Frank Gaffney. Do they matter? To begin, they endorse attacks on civil liberties and they unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the war criminal and Israeli President, Ariel Sharon and his Lukud Party. Organizations that were created to cater for the Neo-Cons cause and agenda are “The Bradley Foundation”, “The American Enterprise Institute” and “PNAC” (project for a new American century). Prominent media sympathizers are the Wall Street Journal and New York Times.
American hegemony in the twenty first century is indisputably absolute. As a people Americans are peaceful, altruistic and compassionate much as people are the world over. However when power becomes absolute, unchallengeable and on a global scale there will always be those who seek to use it to pursue they’re immoral, unethical and misguided goals. American power in the hands of such people as the neo-conservatives may be used to wreak much havoc, misery, suffering and death in the world. On the other hand it is potentially a force capable of contributing to the greater good.
The key is education. There must exist counter-propaganda news and information service easily accessible to all Americans in order that balanced coverage of events and political agenda’s is ensured. The means must be made available to counter the efforts of the right wing neo-conservatives. The US has presented itself to the world as the squeaky clean “good guys” battling the forces of evil through sophisticated media manipulation from romanticized, idealized Hollywood cinema interpretations of historical events to biased, one-sided coverage of current affairs. The alternatives to a hegemonic empire may be even less desirable, but that should not imply any should exist.
The question might be asked by some; “are the neo conservatives really such a dangerous threat to world peace and security? In my mind there is little doubt, and these precepts are some of the reasons why.
1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual
2. Believe that the map of The Middle East must be re-drawn and are prepared to use force to achieve this
3. Accept the concept that the ends justify the means
4. Believe in “preventive” war to achieve desired outcomes. (As opposed to “pre-emptive war”.
5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
6. Believe in the legitimacy of an American Empire and strongly endorse it.
7. Believe lying is necessary for the State to survive.
8. Believe in powerful Federal government.
9. Believe society should be ruled and held together by an elite ruling class.
10. Reject neutrality in foreign affairs.
11. Believe imperialism is appropriate.
12. Believe deploying US military might to enforce US ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of the nation.
13. Events surrounding the September 11 attacks (the much needed and timely massive threat to US homeland security after the cessation of the cold war are enveloped in controversy, since they provided the timely springboard for long dormant neo-conservative policy.
Neo-Conservative law makers such as Tom DeLay the influential leader of Republican majority in the US house of Representatives, one of Bush’s closest allies in Congress who whilst in Israel recently addressing members of Knesset (July 30/ 03) dismissed the unilateral cease fire by Palestinian factions which had resulted in a virtual cessation of violence against Israeli civilians and occupation forces as “nothing more than a 90 day holiday” for “terrorists” and “murderers”. He urged Israel to ignore the ceasefire and go on killing Palestinian activists. DeLay is an avowed Christian Zionist and fundamentalist amongst many in the Bush Administration. A fact, which I am afraid, eliminates any serious proposals for peace in the conflict whilst the Bush team holds power.
Thankfully, not all Americans support the Neo-conservative’s agenda. Two distinguished professors, Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth wrote recently in “Foreign Affairs” “Uni-popularity makes it possible to be the global bully – but it also offers the US the luxury of being able to look beyond it’s immediate needs, to it’s own and the worlds, long term interests. Magnanimity and restraint in face of temptation are tenets of successful State-craft that have proved their worth.” If the Bush team wins another election, which is unlikely, the world will have enormous cause for concern, on top of a present substantial cause for alarm. One factor is clear to all those who must deal with the United States of America. Diplomacy is best backed up with military muscle.
William Hardiker
William Hardiker 28/10/03
“How did we get here?” “Does anyone care?”
In a speech to Congress on July 11 2003, Republican Representative Ron Paul asked the house these rhetorical questions. Being so long overdue, they surely caused much unease. Much averting of eyes, and scrutiny of fingernails.
For why have such crucially important questions relating to the conduct of the post September 11 Bush Administration not been raised, analyzed, discussed and debated exhaustedly? Not surprisingly, it was the mighty dollar that caused alarm bells to ring after Senator Paul pointed out that the US national debt is increasing at a rate greater than half a trillion dollars a year and the debt limit was recently raised by the Bush team to a calculator blowing $984 billion. Total US government obligations are $43 trillion, whilst US household’s net worth is just over $40.6 trillion.
In the first fully fledged outburst of high level government dissent against the Neo-Conservative’s radical and dangerous agenda, Mr. Paul stated that which has been a long time coming; two years to be precise. The time it has taken for many Americans to recover from the psychological damage wreaked by the September 11 attacks, which transformed the collective American psyche from one of national invincibility, to one of national vulnerability. “Ideas”, he exclaimed, “have consequences”. And “bad ideas, have bad consequences”. Let us hope that Mr.Wolfowitz and Vice President Chenney were taking notes.
There is cause for optimism in what appears to be a slow dawn of awakening within the United States as to who has been calling the shots within George Bush’s administration, and a beginning of questions being raised in relation to the response to the events of September 11, 2001. Like the death of a loved one, a period of mourning is required before, hopefully, the reality of the new state of affairs, minus the deceased is accepted. Sometimes the period is short lived, other times the wound never heals. This seems to have been the case after the world trade centre attacks. As the wounds heal, perhaps also there will be an emergence of common sense.
Only now, with questions such as those asked by Senator Paul, does the country appear to be emerging from a ‘twilight reality’ of fearful vulnerability, insecurity, suspicion and potential danger from the reality that is the world beyond the confines of the United States of America. That it has taken such a long time can be explained innocently on the one hand because of the surprise, audacity and proportions of the tragedy, and on the other because of devious political manipulation that ensured the event could be exploited to implement an agenda that otherwise would be rejected; not only by the victims and the American public, but that the world in general who unanimously supported and endorsed a radical policy of retribution rather than demanding a criminal investigation. The people cannot to be blamed, for they are but the innocent victims of ruthless technocrats, elites and politicians who understand all to well the power of “the politics of fear”.
Between the attacks themselves and Senator Paul’s questions to Congress, not all were stricken by what might be considered posttraumatic shock syndrome. Busy hands have been at work wreaking much havoc within the halls of power. Senator Paul was perhaps amongst the “outsiders” to regain the full use of his faculties, however the real ‘wake up’ call had more to do with philosophical concerns and how they have driven policy over the past two years. Certain individuals, who are now well known as the Neo-Conservatives planned a ‘grand strategy’ for America’s future into the 21st century which only required an impetus to implement with majority approval, was ready and waiting for the opportune time. The fact that the people, that is, you and I, were neither consulted nor the subject opened to debate, and because of George Bush’s declared love and affection for ‘freedom of speech and opinion’ allows us all a pretty clear indication of how democracy works in the United States of America.
Now that the US military is firmly bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is new talk as to whose will be the next head to roll. Iran? Syria? North Korea? At this juncture, Senator Paul’s speech becomes interesting and I am sure all sat forward in their seats in anticipation of the answers he would provide his own questions, “how did all this transpire?” “Why did the government do it?” “Why haven’t people objected?” “Does anyone care?” All questions that I have been asking myself continuously since the dust settled in Lower Manhattan two years ago. Not surprisingly, these questions hung in the rarefied atmosphere unanswered. The end of “major combat operations” in Iraq, or “the war that nearly ended” and the continuing return home to the US of young marines in body bags is dampening much of the war euphoria which reached it’s crescendo and erupted in joy when the statues of Saddam were toppled (no analogy intended, but after all it has been said that war is but the deadly games of grown boys) and the desire for revenge against a non visible, abstract enemy began to dissipate. Despite the efforts of the Pentagon and defense Department to create and apply a public persona to an unseen “enemy” that consumed so much attention, tax dollars and lives, the US is facing an increasingly difficult task in “perpetuating the myth” that vast, highly organized and efficient terror organizations are threatening US homeland security and global peace and stability. The inability of government and military to stifle the flow of non-corporate news and enormous amounts of independent information from reaching huge audiences throughout the world via the world wide web handicaps the corporate media propaganda machine in accomplishing that which it’s sponsors (the US government) would hope to achieve. Though certainly a great proportion of the American public are content to apathetically absorb and espouse whatever nonsense they are told to believe by corporate media giants such as “CNN”, the “Wall Street Journal” and “New York Times”.
Now that Senator Paul had the full attention of Congress he went on to answer his own questions. “We got here because ideas have consequences,” he said. “And bad ideas have bad consequences”. Certainly a reasonable assessment despite the ambiguity and obviousness to all other than the mesmerized American establishment and majority public opinion. However let us keep in mind that these congressmen and women are the returned “posse”, the sated “lynch mob” that went out after Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein with fire in their belly and hatred in their minds. But the questions are finally being asked and for that we should all rejoice. Whose philosophic ideas drove us to this point? Let us reject them before it is too late and decide upon another set of intellectual parameters. Worthy aspirations surely. But an enormous request of the United States of America.
Those amongst us “in the know”. Those who ignored the corporate media coverage of events since September 11, 2001 have long been aware of who is pulling the strings within the Bush Administration and “mad dog” Rumsfeld’s Pentagon. There is abundant evidence exposing those whose influence, ‘political clout’ and extreme right wing fundamentalist agenda which George .W. Bush’s revivalist God has instructed him to embrace and implement as official US foreign policy. These are the Neo-Conservatives. The remnants of President Ronald Reagan’s administration and their re-vitalized 21st century prodigies. These constitute a powerful voice within the American establishment and have infiltrated all facets of government, society and the media. They are the ‘think tank institutes’ and ‘defense policy boards’; the so-called experts of Washington and New York called upon for comment by pro government media and who are by no means backwards in coming forward to present their opinions perspectives and prejudices in regards to what they consider in America’s national interest and self-appointed role in the 21st century, being as it is, the solitary and unchallengeable super-power. Amongst them are the pro-Israeli lobbyists, (the powerful American Zionist organizations seeking a greater Israel whilst pursuing a course of murder, expulsion, subjugation, dislocation, ethnic cleansing indignation, expulsion whilst denying basic humanitarian conventions of compassion, dignity and respect for the indigenous Palestinian population) the priority being US global geo-strategic and economic primacy. An American President such as George Bush needs all the advice he can get, and because his key advisors are Neo-Conservatives we can expect to see the strategy of the PNAC (Project for a new American century) implemented as laid out in the mission statement now widely available. Key words that best encapsulate their ideology are; militarism, Zionism, domination, patriotism, racism, global hegemony, empire and peacemaker. All condoned under the maxim; “perpetual war for perpetual peace”
After September 11, shell-shocked Democrats lost course to a large extent and virtually abdicated their responsibility as an influential organization. No policy was too severe or extreme in the face of such audacious attacks at the heart of the US establishment. During this period of understandable political disarray, the Neo-Conservatives lay down the doctrine they had been sitting on waiting for just such an opportunity to present itself. Conspiracy theorists have made much of the timing of these events and certainly after studying the order of events as they occurred after the first airliner hit twin tower number one, there is much that remains questionable in relation to who knew what and when. The American public and the world in general were caught up in a patriotic fervor that manifested itself in anti-Islamic sentiment and, to the delight of the neo-cons happily endorsed military adventurism was enthusiastically endorsed and resulted in the high altitude bombing of Afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq, a weak and harmless state without the ability nor will to again fight the US aggressor.
The affect of Neo-Conservative policy as adopted by the bush team in the past twelve months has seen the demise of medical, personal and financial privacy. Free speech and the fourth Amendment have been under relentless attack. Policing the world, nation building and regime change issues are popular campaign targets. Yet none of this happened by chance. The Neo-Cons have diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their agenda in a policy paper in the 1990’s entitled “Rebuilding America’s defenses for a new century” In it they outlined they’re doctrine; Geo-strategic primacy achieved by “preventive” war. These people are not your everyday conservatives dedicated to limited constitutional government. They are ruthless, extremist, militant, Christian fundamentalists with a clear vision of what they perceive to be America’s role in the 21st century. The unchallengeable superpower, with the means, the will and determination to preserve global geo-strategic primacy and ward off any future challengers at whatever cost and by all available means.
Who are these people? Principals include Dick Chenney, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristoll, Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan Michael Ledeen, Donald Rumsfeld, James Woolsey, Bill Bennett and Frank Gaffney. Do they matter? To begin, they endorse attacks on civil liberties and they unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the war criminal and Israeli President, Ariel Sharon and his Lukud Party. Organizations that were created to cater for the Neo-Cons cause and agenda are “The Bradley Foundation”, “The American Enterprise Institute” and “PNAC” (project for a new American century). Prominent media sympathizers are the Wall Street Journal and New York Times.
American hegemony in the twenty first century is indisputably absolute. As a people Americans are peaceful, altruistic and compassionate much as people are the world over. However when power becomes absolute, unchallengeable and on a global scale there will always be those who seek to use it to pursue they’re immoral, unethical and misguided goals. American power in the hands of such people as the neo-conservatives may be used to wreak much havoc, misery, suffering and death in the world. On the other hand it is potentially a force capable of contributing to the greater good.
The key is education. There must exist counter-propaganda news and information service easily accessible to all Americans in order that balanced coverage of events and political agenda’s is ensured. The means must be made available to counter the efforts of the right wing neo-conservatives. The US has presented itself to the world as the squeaky clean “good guys” battling the forces of evil through sophisticated media manipulation from romanticized, idealized Hollywood cinema interpretations of historical events to biased, one-sided coverage of current affairs. The alternatives to a hegemonic empire may be even less desirable, but that should not imply any should exist.
The question might be asked by some; “are the neo conservatives really such a dangerous threat to world peace and security? In my mind there is little doubt, and these precepts are some of the reasons why.
1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual
2. Believe that the map of The Middle East must be re-drawn and are prepared to use force to achieve this
3. Accept the concept that the ends justify the means
4. Believe in “preventive” war to achieve desired outcomes. (As opposed to “pre-emptive war”.
5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
6. Believe in the legitimacy of an American Empire and strongly endorse it.
7. Believe lying is necessary for the State to survive.
8. Believe in powerful Federal government.
9. Believe society should be ruled and held together by an elite ruling class.
10. Reject neutrality in foreign affairs.
11. Believe imperialism is appropriate.
12. Believe deploying US military might to enforce US ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of the nation.
13. Events surrounding the September 11 attacks (the much needed and timely massive threat to US homeland security after the cessation of the cold war are enveloped in controversy, since they provided the timely springboard for long dormant neo-conservative policy.
Neo-Conservative law makers such as Tom DeLay the influential leader of Republican majority in the US house of Representatives, one of Bush’s closest allies in Congress who whilst in Israel recently addressing members of Knesset (July 30/ 03) dismissed the unilateral cease fire by Palestinian factions which had resulted in a virtual cessation of violence against Israeli civilians and occupation forces as “nothing more than a 90 day holiday” for “terrorists” and “murderers”. He urged Israel to ignore the ceasefire and go on killing Palestinian activists. DeLay is an avowed Christian Zionist and fundamentalist amongst many in the Bush Administration. A fact, which I am afraid, eliminates any serious proposals for peace in the conflict whilst the Bush team holds power.
Thankfully, not all Americans support the Neo-conservative’s agenda. Two distinguished professors, Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth wrote recently in “Foreign Affairs” “Uni-popularity makes it possible to be the global bully – but it also offers the US the luxury of being able to look beyond it’s immediate needs, to it’s own and the worlds, long term interests. Magnanimity and restraint in face of temptation are tenets of successful State-craft that have proved their worth.” If the Bush team wins another election, which is unlikely, the world will have enormous cause for concern, on top of a present substantial cause for alarm. One factor is clear to all those who must deal with the United States of America. Diplomacy is best backed up with military muscle.
William Hardiker
William Mark Hardiker
e-mail:
willhardiker@hotmail.com