The End of America

[Sapiens]

Firefighters asked to report people who express discontent with the government

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Homela...stic_1129.html

Firefighters asked to report people who express discontent with the government
11/29/2007 @ 10:09 am
Filed by David Edwards and Muriel Kane

It was revealed last week that firefighters are being trained to not only keep an eye out for illegal materials in the course of their duties, but even to report back any expression of discontent with the government.

A year ago, Homeland Security gave security clearances to nine New York City fire chiefs and began sharing intelligence with them. Even before that, fire department personnel were being taught "to identify material or behavior that may indicate terrorist activities" and were also "told to be alert for a person who is hostile, uncooperative or expressing hate or discontent with the United States."

Unlike law enforcement officials, firemen can go onto private property without a warrant, not only while fighting fires but also for inspections. "It's the evolution of the fire service," said a Phoenix, AZ fire chief of his information-sharing arrangement with law enforcement.
Keith Olbermann raised the alarm about the program on his show Wednesday, noting that "if the information-sharing program works in New York, the department says it will extend it to other major metropolitan areas, unless we stop them." He then asked Mike German, a former FBI agent who is now with the ACLU, "This program seems to be turning [firefighters], essentially, into legally protected domestic spies, does it not?"

"That's the entire intent," German replied, noting the serious legal issues involved. "There is actually still a fourth amendment," he pointed out, "and what makes a firefighter's search reasonable is that it's done to prevent a fire. If now firefighters are going in with this secondary purpose, that end run around the fourth amendment won't work, and it's likely that they will find themselves in legal trouble."

Olbermann, however, was most strongly concerned about the implications for civil liberties. "Is what disturbs you and the ACLU the same thing that just jumped off the page for me?" he asked. "That one phrase, 'look for people who are expressing hatred of or discontent with the United States?' Discontent?"

German agreed that there are serious first amendment issues raised by the focus of the program on constitutionally-protected literature, such as books that might be considered "terrorist propaganda."

Olbermann asked in conclusion whether firefighters could be used under this program to plant evidence. German agreed that the way it is defined "really plays to people's prejudices and gives them the opportunity to do damage to someone."

This video is from MSNBC's Countdown, broadcast on November 28, 2007.

[metalman]

Re: Firefighters asked to report people who express discontent with the government

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Homela...stic_1129.html





This video is from MSNBC's Countdown, broadcast on November 28, 2007.

anyone who says there's no threat of the usa turning into more of a police state is deluded. the only debate can be over degree. the populace is ignorant of the process and it's happened before... just before entry into wwii. it will happen again just before us entry into wwiii... the resource wars, i'd suppose launched by don putin or some other event. that will kick the process off as 9/11 did.

maybe you'll just take yet another step back and draw yet another line in the sand marking your new "acceptable" level of loss of personal liberty. but at some point it'll be too late... all of you here who say wolf is extreme will fall silent just like she says she will... you will not speak up then. you will be too afraid.

remember what happened to bill maher when he spoke the truth about iraq? enjoy your last views of oberman et al. they'll be off the air within 2 yrs. maybe when they go off the air you'll take a stand? is that your line in the sand? do you have one?

on the fire dept. spies... i used to live in an area of a city where cars were getting broken into. the cops couldn't do much except arrest them and they'd be out in no time... prisons too full of war on drugs convicts. so the neighbors developed a system. when anyone saw guys breaking into cars, they'd call the night watchman at one the local office buildings. he'd then report the breakins to the local fire dept. the firemen then came over, grabbed the robbers and beat the shit out of them. soon enough, no more car break-ins. true story. if some new "bad guys" are identified for those firemen... i have no doubt they'll do the job.

don't forget where fire dept.s came from. they were originally started and funded by the insurance co.s to protect buildings from fire to reduce losses.

[Guest]

Re: The End of America

Sapiens, Metalman -

You comments about the encroachments of traditional democracy in America are fully appreciated, and I would join your activism to roll that back, 100%. , However, if you re-read my posts (which i infer are what your are replying to), actually my quite explicit argument was another one.

It's not that authors lke Ms. Wolf are making a false argument about serious erosion of democracy - it's that they are making a highly partial argument, and the part of the discussion Ms. Wolf (for one) misses seems to be missing from your comments as well.

I am interested to hear more from people here about the international issues which have created the quantum jump in the depth, scale and dispersion of international terrorist methods of "warfare" on the part of entities outside the US, insofar as it's manifestly clear (to me at any rate, but it seems an uphill slog to convince others here) that international terror has contributed greatly to not only America's slide into repressive government (aka "Paranoid" government) but also, and critically important to accept, has contributed to America's truly disastrous, budget busting "war on terror".

Of course, the "war on Terror" is full of canards and some elements of gross falsity, and has been heavily abused for lowly political ends by the current administration, but I submit a considerable majority of people here, in their quite legitimate disgust with our government's handling of this complex chain of events, has utterly forgotten, or willfully disbelieves, that the recent history which kickstarted the "War on Terror" contains an overwhelming portion of absolutely real, quite dangerous, and very harsh truth springing from groups entirely outside of the US today. If you think all such components are pure falsity then you and I have little to talk about in common.

There is a can of worms there with a life of it's own, which your average intelligent, Bush-regime-skeptical American today simply has grown to disbelieve or chooses to ignore in the false assumption that "terror" is a Bush invention to get where Bush wants to go. The fact is, those terror groups exist entirely independently of Bush, and will continue to exist and thrive long after this administration is gone.

Americans are really very insular. I see a powerful reversion, after eight years of this administration's "bending our ear" about terror this and terror that, for many people to remain planted firmly in wishful thinking or mere political distraction on this one topic. That terrorism has coalesced and vastly strenghthened from the 1980's and 1990's, into something far different in this decade. Bush's co-opting of this theme and wearing it out for hackneyed political ends, has created a skepticism in many of you which I submit is false, and indeed will eventually be shown to be dangerously false

This "discredited fact" has instead progressed to a model which moves into entire nations and subverts their sovereignty. This is why I posted a series of head's up about Lebanon / Syria, which is a classic case in the mould of Afghanistan, and we can clearly trace attempts to co-opt Iraq as well, by groups who's modus operandi in this brave new century is to take over entire nation states who display any weakness (opportunism of a virus) and make those weak states "amenable" to hosting extranational terror groups with agendas far beyond merely co-opting that one country.

iTulip is a very sophisticated community. But there is under the surface a latter-day "disgusted-with-Bush" - "Northeast Liberal" bias at work here, and it takes this form of thinking, (which I think, tunes out some pretty major factors):

Bush has piggybacked on the "terrorism thingy" for so many years, and so disastrously, that the only real story here regarding terrorism is to recognize and expose that this Administration have simply co-opted terrorism to further their agenda, an agenda which is dangeorusly corrosive to our Democracy.

The "corrosive to democracy" part is absolutely true (it's what you two are limiting yourselves to remarking on). But the terrorism part is critical to our near term future (the next decade) and has become utterly lost in your bias that most of the worst of what's occurring today is brought about by this wretched US government, who are co-opting mere slogans just to willfully create a repressive domestic agenda.

I firmly believe this is false, by virtue of being only a partial truth, with one of it's most important components amputated altogether from acknowledgement.

Easily one of the worst things that is developing in the world today is the rise of proto-fascist nation-states in OTHER parts of the world. I've posted about Lebanon here on several occasions, because it is the "canary in the coalmine" about what's showing every intention of seeping into further countries as well, powerfully aided by the approaching scarcity of oil.

What Hezbollah did to Lebanon, and what Hamas has done to the Palestinian people in Gaza, where they now truly live under a the terrorism of Hamas against their own people, are very unfashionable issues to discuss here, precisely because they fall in so neatly with the concerns of a certain Mr. G.W. Bush. Venezuela is another example, and things are so egregious there, it sounds like they may be on the cusp of a counter-revolution.

Americans are doing what they've always done so well - talking up the national issues they dislike (and are quite legitimately concerned about) while inadvertently greatly simplifying the international corollaries which in our present decade have GREATLY CONTRIBUTED not only to America's corrosion of civil liberties, but also, critically to it's bankrupting itself in a "War on Terror".

How about people here recognizing that there is even a very powerful component of runaway US consumerism added as an overlay? The Government and Federal Reserve were spooked into goosing the entire Real Estate bubble by the need to "get America spending again" not just by the 2000 stock market crash, but also, (in net terms to date, for vastly larger amounts of debt than the 2000 market crash aftermath!), by the destruction of the world trade center and highly expensive launch of the resulting wars abroad. I see a huge reluctance on the part of most people who dislike the knee-jerk NEWSMAX prop-agit rubbish (as we well should!) to recognize that in spite of that prop-agit rubbish, the issue behind it, international terrorism, all grown up now and attempting to eat up entire countries, was merely appropriated as a tool for this administration's propaganda. That is a quite imprecise assumption. The fact is, that sleazy appropriation of the 'terrorism thingy' was a far cry from the actual issue's non-existence. This is the fallacy too many people fall into, and it's comports a moral atrophy just as much as ignoring loss of civil liberties at the hands of one's government comports moral atrophy. What a nice, subtle distinction, eh?

Seen in this light, the advent and metastasizing growth of international terrorism has had a truly vast impact on all of America's fiscal problems, which are one topic everyone on iTulip has an interest in to the point of excluding other valid topis like the reality of international terrorism which i call to your attention. This is a very stark, powerful new reality - the really, really large potential of terrorism to join hands with oil scarcity in the coming years to spread the model of "co-opted nation states" far further and change the world you thought was familiar into something quite new.

This trend is huge, and central not only to the US (who's own peacefulness in the world we all agree is now compromised), but ALSO to many, many genuinely peaceful other countries in the world which in former times America worked actively to support as allies. That will change soon, and it will be one of the biggest changes of the past 60 - 70 years, but no-one here finds it important, because the focus on the encroachment of US civil liberties is the "bandwagon" popular issue to discuss.

International terrorism (and the US Govt. massive, clumsy response to it) was in no small part, at the source, and at the center, of all the events which we comment on in these pages to do with massive, uncontrollable debt, but if you read your objections, which focus entirely on the encroachments of US government upon liberty, I for one note that no mention at all is made to the foreign "abroad" causes of America's slide.

I suggest iTulipers are being sucked in by the simplistic, reductive agenda of political groups who's primary task is the removal of the current Administration. I think their task is a good task - but I am concerned to see the "large silence" which has emerged in this other direction I describe.

I get the feeling rather, whenever I post anything about international terrorism, that the vast majority here look at me like some sort of hopelessly deluded rabid conservative. It's not a delusion, and I'm not a rabid dumbed down Bush conservative (I never even voted for the guy!!). If anything, the delusion (quite manifestly, if you look around the world at current events) is suffered by all those here who regard discussion of terrorism as "irrelevant". If you do, you are living in a state of willful innocence.

The reason making these points seems so discredited today has to do with that sorry assed creature, party politics. If you point out that terrorism, and the co-opting of nation states are real, and very dangerous, you are providing "ammunition" to the current administration, and not in any way aiding the opposition. Hence the Democrat opposition has gradually diminished, de-legitimized, and reduced to near invisibility any mention of international terrorism as having much significance any more, because to do so is to give votes away (however misguided these voters are) to the current administration.

It's one short conceptual step from there to leading Americans, and many concerned and moderate people throughout the world, to conclude thereafter that "Terrorism was an excuse" so over time they become progressively less concerned about it, until you arrive at authors such as Ms. Wolf, product of America's university pedigreed (and to my mind dangerously smug) 'conscience movement" (whose principles for Democracy I completely agree with however, although their smugness as to the full range of issues grates on me) who has seemingly completely "cut out" any consciousness of the huge importance of the reality of the international terror-state from her speaking engagements, books, possibly her dinner table chit-chat, or I suspect even her consciousness.

This is highly incomplete analysis, to my view, descending into partisan viewpoints which risk the same narrowness as those of the current Administration, and it was that which I wanted to point out. Seems a lot of people here buy it without reservations, but I disapprove of it vehemently, because it extracts the US from a global context and de-legitimizes the massive impact upon the US of some very large events happening internationally in this new century. We are sliding into repression from debt. But that debt landslide was initiated by terrorist actions.

Why is this issue considered so plug-ugly ideologically, for many here to acknowledge, eh? I bet you think it smells slightly, as though it had an ideological 'taint' to it. If so, the party politics has a real good grip on you, and is leading you around by the nose.

[Uncle Jack]

Re: The End of America

Statement of James E. Smith

Remember the smith I told you about? Watch this>

[TimM]

Re: The End of America

Sapiens, Metalman -

I suggest iTulipers are being sucked in by the simplistic, reductive agenda of political groups who's primary task is the removal of the current Administration. I think their task is a good task - but I am concerned to see the "large silence" which has emerged in this other direction I describe.

I get the feeling rather, whenever I post anything about international terrorism, that the vast majority here look at me like some sort of hopelessly deluded rabid conservative. It's not a delusion, and I'm not a rabid dumbed down Bush conservative (I never even voted for the guy!!). If anything, the delusion (quite manifestly, if you look around the world at current events) is suffered by all those here who regard discussion of terrorism as "irrelevant". If you do, you are living in a state of willful innocence.

Lukester,

You seem to be placing a lot of words in other people's mouths. I think your posts are the only ones in this thread that tie in party politics with the general theme of rising fascism in this nation. Possibly because you feel your positions are being attacked?

I have not seen another post on this board anywhere and by anyone that is soft on terrorism or unprovoked violence on innocents. What I find missing from your point of view, however, is a simple acknowledgment of cause and effect in the international scene between oppression by a powerful nation and the growth of radical terrorism in those oppressed areas in response.

You talk a lot about "Power Vacuum" like none of us have ever heard of it, or worse that we're brushing it under the rug. Your mistake is confusing a reduction in imperialism with treating other nations with respect. That is, you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Ron Paul has clearly stated that his position is one of non-intervention, not one of helplessness, pandering or isolation. There is nothing wrong with having a powerful military while simultaneously being respectful. Your position seems to be that you feel that intervention is a necessary evil. Is that the case? If so, I feel that YOU are perhaps too innocent, if you feel there aren't consequences to such.

My problem with your position is that it is not consistent. You assert that terrorism is a problem while simultaneously endorsing the root cause of that terrorism, because of some fuzzy notion of "Power Vacuum". Perhaps you wish to elaborate.

Do you accept that most terrorism is almost entirely caused by external oppression? If not, why? My read on history shows this to be a fairly straightforward causality.

[Guest]

Re: The End of America

Tim -

With regard to Ron Paul, I much admire the man, but find his conception of a functional foreign policy, at least in the present or last centuries, to be hopelessly idealistic - the fact is, some truly ugly consequences arise from disengagement just as many equally ugly consequences spring up from engagement.

There are more than a few, really quite ugly state actors out there in the world, and I am not on board with you that they all either would never have appeared, let alone that they all reform, simply because the US retires from their local scene.

If you were the entire electorate and voted this guy in, while he has some very sound ideas for the reform of our internal affiars, you would bear the responsibility for his "highly experimental" ideas about foreign policy, in which many of your foreign allies quite paradoxically, would lose all trust in your support (and go find other friends) if you simply "went away".

Your quixotic decision to "just go away" because as a nation we are "tired" of our obligations everyywhere, (AKA the new isolationism) could easily be to your considerable surprise, regarded as actually quite damning in the eyes of more than just a few nations around the world, in that you did not abide by many security guarantees this country has extended (and maintained) to various allies for the past sixty years.

Take Japan for example. In a new Isolationist America, we become pacifist of constitution like Germany for example, and Japan's security guarantee from the US vanishes. Poof! Suddenly you've got a situation where Japan must re-arm and change the constitutional scop of their military because the US umbrella has withdrawn. Then what have you got? A brand new regional arms race! What a triumph of foreign policy that would be, huh?

Withdrawing spheres of interest is actually just as much a "can of worms" as being enmeshed in them, but I'm willing to bet, you have half the college campus undergraduate political science professors in America inculcating into their students the firm belief that the antithesis of US imperial overstretch will result in a more peaceful world. It might, as a remote possibility twenty years after the fact - but I take one look around at the general neighborhood of squabbling, unsavory SOB's running countries all over the place today and I frankly doubt it.

Now that may not make sense from certain parts of your ethical point of view, but the international game has quite obviously been played by those sphere of influence rules for centuries, and it is highly improbable that it will change in deference to the admittedly laudable idealism of Ron Paul.

Look about you, at other nations who may step in where the US steps away from influence - take a close look at what they are - we are maybe bordering on a banana Republic - it's a very popular idea around here - but some of these "new players" stepping in where we choose to step out under Ron Paul may considerably disappoint you in your quest for a more peaceful world where parassitical terror groups fade away because suddenly their nations are free of exploitation. The US does not have a corner on the exploiting business you know - not by any means.

[TimM]

Re: The End of America

Tim -

With regard to Ron Paul, I much admire the man, but find his conception of a functional foreign policy, at least in the present or last centuries, to be hopelessly idealistic - the fact is, some truly ugly consequences arise from disengagement just as many equally ugly consequences spring up from engagement.

There are more than a few, really quite ugly state actors out there in the world, and I am not on board with you that they all either would never have appeared, let alone that they all reform, simply because the US retires from their local scene.

If you were the entire electorate and voted this guy in, while he has some very sound ideas for the reform of our internal affiars, you would bear the responsibility for his "highly experimental" ideas about foreign policy, in which many of your foreign allies quite paradoxically, would lose all trust in your support (and go find other friends) if you simply "went away".

Your quixotic decision to "just go away" because as a nation we are "tired" of our obligations everyywhere, (AKA the new isolationism) could easily be to your considerable surprise, regarded as actually quite damning in the eyes of more than just a few nations around the world, in that you did not abide by many security guarantees this country has extended (and maintained) to various allies for the past sixty years.

Take Japan for example. In a new Isolationist America, we become pacifist of constitution like Germany for example, and Japan's security guarantee from the US vanishes. Poof! Suddenly you've got a situation where Japan must re-arm and change the constitutional scop of their military because the US umbrella has withdrawn. Then what have you got? A brand new regional arms race! What a triumph of foreign policy that would be, huh?

Withdrawing spheres of interest is actually just as much a "can of worms" as being enmeshed in them, but I'm willing to bet, you have half the college campus undergraduate political science professors in America inculcating into their students the firm belief that the antithesis of US imperial overstretch will result in a more peaceful world. It might, as a remote possibility twenty years after the fact - but I take one look around at the general neighborhood of squabbling, unsavory SOB's running countries all over the place today and I frankly doubt it.

Look about you, at other nations who may step in where the US steps away from influence - take a close look at what they are - we are maybe bordering on a banana Republic - it's a very popular idea around here - but some of these "new players" stepping in where we choose to step out under Ron Paul may considerably disappoint you in your quest for a more peaceful world where parassitical terror groups fade away because suddenly their nations are free of exploitation. The US does not have a corner on the exploiting business you know - not by any means.

I still feel you are handwaving. I understand your stated opinion, but the inconsistencies are still there.

First off, your response consists of nothing but conjecture. Do you have any historical evidence that a measured non-interventionism causes throwback despotism? After the advent of the nuclear bomb I do believe that the rules of the game changed forever. And by the way, Japan has been inching towards the armament door for some time now, seeing our weakness. I have trouble guessing what's going to happen tomorrow, much less creating an elaborate future involving Japan or any other country with any accuracy, as you have done above. Secondly, you have tons of assumptions about how such a non-interventionist policy would be implemented. You assume, simplistically, that we simply withdraw support all over the world without measured discussion, timelines, and planning. I find that idea silly.

You also assume, again, that pacifism is the same thing as non-interventionism. They are NOT, as I mentioned before. We don't stop being players in the world just because we're not up in everyone's business. Diplomacy is still a vital part of Germany's "Pacifist" doctrine, correct? Are they isolationists in your view?

Anyway, my questions to you about your stance on terrorism still stand. You bring up the terrorism card while still maintaining imperialism, never linking the two. Is that your stance? That they are unrelated?

Finally I would like you to clarify what your objective is. You feel an interventionist philosophy is called for because ...??? That's a missing piece of your motivation for me. If the objective is a strong America capable of remaining potent militarily and economically, I think imperialism is deadly to us. Our job as Americans is NOT to prevent SOBs from oppressing their local populations. That is their cross to bear. When they win their freedom, if they desire it, it will be that much more valuable to them. Instead, the job of the US Gov is to defend the rights and privileges that we enjoy here. And this is threatened, in my opinion, by poorly defined policy that incubates terrorism directed at us. With the added bonus of bankrupting us fiscally and morally.

[Guest]

Re: The End of America

I still feel you are handwaving. ... You also assume, again, that pacifism is the same thing as non-interventionism. They are NOT, as I mentioned before. ... Diplomacy is still a vital part of Germany's "Pacifist" doctrine, correct? Are they isolationists in your view?

Tim -

You write << I still feel you are handwaving >>

Well, that's ultimately your prerogative, Tim. I'm willing to bet I'll have to live with your prescriptions for a new US foreign policy at some point fairly soon anyway, as we are manifestly bankrupt, so if you don't mind I'll consider the remainder of my lesson in your views deferred until then - whereupon I'll experience it in real-time? In case you missed it, I don't buy your premise of a good outcome. You can't reform them all old chap.

[World Traveler]

Shackled and Jailed Icelandic Tourist

Article and link follow. She is a citizen of and living in Iceland who recently came to shop in US. In 1995, she over-stayed her visa by 3 weeks. At airport, it came up in her records, she was arrested and shackled, and taken from airport to jail.

Reason I am posting this is because I have read of 2 other similiar occurances recently. All had the same things to say about US Customs, Homeland Security, and Immigration folks. One guy, a European musician who had performed in old Soviet Union even said "The KGB were more professional and polite than the US officials..."

Blog by Erla Ósk Arnardóttir Lillendahl:
(English Translation: Gunnar Tómasson, Certified translator

During the last twenty-four hours I have probably experienced the greatest humiliation to which I have ever been subjected. During these last twenty-four hours I have been handcuffed and chained, denied the chance to sleep, been without food and drink and been confined to a place without anyone knowing my whereabouts, imprisoned. Now I am beginning to try to understand all this, rest and review the events which began as innocently as possible.

Last Sunday I and a few other girls began our trip to New York. We were going to shop and enjoy the Christmas spirit. We made ourselves comfortable on first class, drank white wine and looked forward to go shopping, eat good food and enjoy life. When we landed at JFK airport the traditional clearance process began. We were screened and went on to passport control. As I waited for them to finish examining my passport I heard an official say that there was something which needed to be looked at more closely and I was directed to the work station of Homeland Security. There I was told that according to their records I had overstayed my visa by 3 weeks in 1995. For this reason I would not be admitted to the country and would be sent home on the next flight. I looked at the official in disbelief and told him that I had in fact visited New York after the trip in 1995 without encountering any difficulties. A detailed interrogation session ensued. I was photographed and fingerprinted. I was asked questions which I felt had nothing to do with the issue at hand. I was forbidden to contact anyone to advise of my predicament and although I was invited at the outset to contact the Icelandic consul or embassy, that invitation was later withdrawn. I don't know why. I was then made to wait while they sought further information, and sat on a chair before the authority for 5 hours. I saw the officials in this section handle other cases and it was clear that these were men anxious to demonstrate their power. Small kings with megalomania. I was careful to remain completely cooperative, for I did not yet believe that they planned to deport me because of my "crime". When 5 hours had passed and I had been awake for 24 hours, I was told that they were waiting for officials who would take me to a kind of waiting room. There I would be given a bed to rest in, some food and I would be searched. What they thought they might find I cannot possibly imagine. Finally guards appeared who transported me to the new place. I saw the bed as if in a mirage, for I was absolutely exhausted. What turned out was something else. I was taken to another office exactly like the one where I had been before and once again a long wait ensued. In all, it turned out to be 5 hours. At this office all my things were taken from me. I succeeded in sending a single sms to worried relatives and friends when I was granted a bathroom break. After that the cell phone was taken from me. After I had been sitting for 5 hours I was told that they were now waiting for guards who would take me to a place where I could rest and eat. Then I was placed in a cubicle which looked like an operating room. Attached to the walls were 4 steel plates, probably intended to serve as bed and a toilet. I was exhausted, tired and hungry. I didn't understand the officials’ conduct, for they were treating me like a very dangerous criminal. Soon thereafter I was removed from the cubicle and two armed guards placed me up against a wall. A chain was fastened around my waist and I was handcuffed to the chain. Then my legs were placed in chains. I asked for permission to make a telephone call but they refused. So secured, I was taken from the airport terminal in full sight of everybody. I have seldom felt so bad, so humiliated and all because I had taken a longer vacation than allowed under the law.

They would not tell me where they were taking me. The trip took close to one hour and although I couldn’t see clearly outside the vehicle I knew that we had crossed over into New Jersey. We ended up in front of a jail. I could hardly believe that this was happening. Was I really about to be jailed? I was led inside in the chains and there yet another interrogation session ensued. I was fingerprinted once again and photographed. I was made to undergo a medical examination, I was searched and then I was placed in a jail cell. I was asked absurd questions such as: When did you have your last period? What do you believe in? Have you ever tried to commit suicide?

I was completely exhausted, tired and cold. Fourteen hours after I had landed I had something to eat and drink for the first time. I was given porridge and bread. But it did not help much. I was afraid and the attitude of all who handled me was abysmal to say the least. They did not speak to me as much as snap at me. Once again I asked to make a telephone call and this time the answer was positive. I was relieved but the relief was short-lived. For the telephone was set up for collect calls only and it was not possible to make overseas calls. The jailguard held my cell phone in his hand. I explained to him that I could not make a call from the jail telephone and asked to be allowed to make one call from my own phone. That was out of the question. I spent the next 9 hours in a small, dirty cell. The only thing in there was a narrow steel board which extended out from the wall, a sink and toilet. I wish I never experience again in my life the feeling of confinement and helplessness which I experienced there.

I was hugely relieved when, at last, I was told that I was to be taken to the airport, that is to say until I was again handcuffed and chained.Then I could take no more and broke down and cried. I begged them at least to leave out the leg chains but my request was ignored. When we arrived at the airport, another jail guard took pity on me and removed the leg chains. Even so I was led through a full airport terminal handcuffed and escorted by armed men. I felt terrible. On seeing this, people must think that there goes a very dangerous criminal. In this condition I was led up into the Icelandair waiting room, and was kept handcuffed until I entered the embarkation corridor. I was completely run down by all this in both body and spirit. Fortunately I could count on good people and both Einar (the captain) and the crew did all which they could to try to assist me. My friend Auður was in close contact with my sister and the consul and embassy had been contacted. However, all had received misleading information and all had been told that I had been detained at the airport terminal, not that I had been put in jail. Now the Foreign Ministry is looking into the matter and I hope to receive some explanation why I was treated this way.

http://eggmann.blog.is/blog/eggmann/entry/389611/

[TimM]

Re: The End of America

Tim -

You write << I still feel you are handwaving >>

Well, that's ultimately your prerogative, Tim. I'm willing to bet I'll have to live with your prescriptions for a new US foreign policy at some point fairly soon anyway, as we are manifestly bankrupt, so if you don't mind I'll consider the remainder of my lesson in your views deferred until then - whereupon I'll experience it in real-time? In case you missed it, I don't buy your premise of a good outcome. You can't reform them all old chap.

I wish it were true, that you would have to live with an outcome like non-interventionism. ;) However, I doubt we'll be so lucky. Populations don't generally learn their history lessons very quickly if at all, and unfortunately I think it'll get worse before it gets better. It took two devastating wars in Europe for them to catch on. Same with Japan.

Our lesson will likely be a flirtation with the poor house and/or some more obvious form of fascism before we figure it out. Hopefully we all stay intact through the process.

[Guest]

Re: The End of America

TimM -

This article is a wonderful illustration of why I regard a very large group of Americans who are heartily cheering Ron Paul's message of a "new American non-interventionism" as a bunch of wilfully naive people who urgently need to familiarize themselves with the implications of "power vacuums" - which have been amply demonstrated in history to create almost as much havoc, disintegration of nations, and bloodshed as have the interventions themselves.

Nobody has ever demonstrated that reality is willing to follow clearly delineated black and white morality tales - do no evil and evil will not find you - is a childish precept when reviewing the uninterrupted history of mayhem and power plotting, and wars and bloodshed which is modern human history anyway.

The mob of insular Americans, caught up in the new populist mantra which is a visceral reaction against the recent disastrous (and indeed, immoral) wars, with only the vaguest sense of the delicate web of interactions propping up the current world order (which America is now unfortunately thoroughly enmeshed in), are going to be hotly proclaiming the advent of a radically new direction in American foreign policy after 2008, which will put all of our current friends around the world on notice that from here on out, we believe in the virtue of "laissez faire" and they will have to sort out any of their regional problems themselves.

I hope they'll give me time to hide under my desk or in the basement, as a lot of shit and flying bricks are going to hit the fan internationally as a consequence of this new American infatuation, which is almost as quixotic, bumbling and naive as the wars we let our current Administration get into recently.

When you read this article, try to imagine how delighted Russia will be with this new American vision of virtue, as it opens up vast new ambitious vistas of "influence" which the Russians (and others) can cultivate and let flower, not only in outlying areas, but even as centrally as Western Europe, which itself has wobbled precariously on it's own initiative before Russion pressures to "influence" it in past decades.

The fantasy of American "non-interventionism" is a testament to that uniquely American quality - a large, formerly blessed, and powerful nation, with less familiarity and more naivete' about global history than a great number of other nations abroad. I cringe at the exent of the populist innocence inherent in the new "non-interventionism" replete with visions of a new "home-spun" American profile. It promises all the awkward misunderstanding of the reach and potential ability to create compounding mayhem, of hostile foreign entities that was indulged by the former president Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter was absolutely visionary on energy, but his understanding of the realities of other nations profoundly and persistently cynical dealings in foreign policy was not among the more astute among our former US presidencies.

Read this article and try to understand the extent of the seething, writhing can of worms out there that will double and redouble in trouble-filled activity as soon as they realise a "new American non-interventionism" has been installed into government. When this article hit my mailbox I knew it would (might?) provide you with some serious food for thought on the implications of Ron Paul's desire to retreat or scale down from international obligations. That scale down is of course on one hand what America desperately needs to heal it's disastrous budget and public image, but on the other hand it incrporates the very great fallacy of believing that good will come of it abroad.

An example which this article references, is NATO. What is key to understanding the ability of Nato to exert any stabilising effect in situations as that described below, is to grasp that if the US turns inwards, NATO will be quickly and inexorably transformed into an entity with about the same degree of vacillating indecision as the UN, whose ability to adjudicate "thorny issues" is notoriously feeble. This is implies a new US turn inwards is a recipe for a more fragmented international balance of powers, not as you hope, for a world that's more peaceful. You will see it come about.


Russia: Kosovo and the Asymmetry of Perceptions

By George Friedman

Kosovo appears to be an archaic topic. The Yugoslavian question was a 1990s issue, while the Kosovo issue has appeared to be one of those conflicts that never quite goes away but isn't regarded very seriously by the international community. You hear about it but you don't care about it. However, Kosovo is getting very serious again.

The United States and Europe appear committed to making Kosovo, now a province of Serbia, an independent state. Of course, Serbia opposes this, but more important, so does Russia. Russia opposed the original conflict, but at that point it was weak and its wishes were irrelevant. Russia opposes independence for Kosovo now, and it is far from the weak state it was in 1999 -- and is not likely to take this quietly. Kosovo's potential as a flash point between Russia and the West makes it important again. Let's therefore review the action to this point.

In 1999, NATO, led by the United States, conducted a 60-day bombing campaign against Yugoslavia and its main component, Serbia. The issue was the charge that Yugoslavia was sponsoring the mass murder of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, just as it had against Bosnian Muslims. The campaign aimed to force the Yugoslav army out of Kosovo while allowing a NATO force to occupy and administer the province.

Two strands led to this action. The first was the fear that the demonstrable atrocities committed by Serbs in Bosnia were being repeated in Kosovo. The second was the general feeling dominant in the 1990s that the international community's primary task was dealing with rogue states behaving in ways that violated international norms. In other words, it was assumed that there was a general international consensus on how the world should look, that the United States was the leader of this international consensus and that there was no power that could threaten the United States or the unity of the vision. There were only weak, isolated rogue states that had to be dealt with. There was no real risk attached to these operations. Yugoslavia was identified as one of those rogue states. The United States, without the United Nations but with the backing of most European countries, dealt with it.

There was no question that Serbs committed massive atrocities in Bosnia, and that Bosnians and Croats carried out massive atrocities against Serbs. These atrocities occurred in the context of Yugoslavia's explosion after the end of the Cold War. Yugoslavia had been part of an arc running from the Danube to the Hindu Kush, frozen into place by the Cold War. Muslims had been divided by the line, with some living in the former Soviet Union but most on the other side. The Yugoslav state consisted of Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Muslims; it was communist but anti-Soviet and cooperated with the United States. It was an artificial state imposed on multiple nationalities by the victors of World War I and held in place after World War II by the force field created by U.S.-Soviet power. When the Soviets fell, the force field collapsed and Yugoslavia detonated, followed later by the rest of the arc.

The NATO mission, then, was to stabilize the western end of this arc, Yugoslavia. The strategy was to abolish the multinational state created after World War I and replace it with a series of nation-states -- such as Slovenia and Macedonia -- built around a coherent national unit. This would stabilize Yugoslavia. The problem with this plan was that each nation-state would contain substantial ethnic minorities, regardless of attempts to redraw the borders. Thus, Bosnia contains Serbs. But the theory was that small states overwhelmingly consisting of one nationality could remain stable in the face of ethnic diversity so long as there was a dominant nation -- unlike Yugoslavia, where there was no central national grouping.

So NATO decided to re-engineer the Balkans much as they were re-engineered after World War I. NATO and the United States got caught in a weird intellectual trap. On the one hand, there was an absolute consensus that the post-World War II borders of Europe were sacrosanct. If that wasn't the case, then Hungarians living in Romanian Transylvania might want to rejoin Hungary, Turkish regions of Cyprus might want to join Turkey, Germany might want to reclaim Silesia and Northern Ireland might want to secede from the United Kingdom. All hell could break loose, and one of the ways Europe avoided hell after 1945 was a cardinal rule: No borders would shift.

The re-engineering of Yugoslavia was not seen as changing borders. Rather, it was seen as eliminating a completely artificial state and freeing genuine nations to have their own states. But it was assumed that the historic borders of those states could not be changed merely because of the presence of other ethnic groups concentrated in a region. So the desire of Bosnian Serbs to join Serbia was rejected, both because of the atrocious behavior of the Bosnian Serbs and because it would have shifted the historic borders of Bosnia. If all of this seems a bit tortured, please recall the hubris of the West in the 1990s. Anything was possible, including re-engineering the land of the south Slavs, as Yugoslavia's name translates in English.

In all of this, Serbia was seen as the problem. Rather than viewing Yugoslavia as a general failed project, Serbia was seen not so much as part of the failure but as an intrinsically egregious actor that had to be treated differently than the rest, given its behavior, particularly against the Bosnians. When it appeared that the Serbs were repeating their actions in Bosnia against Albanian Muslims in 1999, the United States and other NATO allies felt they had to intervene.

In fact, the level of atrocities in Kosovo never approached what happened in Bosnia, nor what the Clinton administration said was going on before and during the war. At one point, it was said that hundreds of thousands of men were missing, and later that 10,000 had been killed and bodies were being dissolved in acid. The post-war analysis never revealed any atrocities on this order of magnitude. But that was not the point. The point was that the United States had shifted to a post-Cold War attitude, and that since there were no real threats against the United States, the primary mission of foreign policy was dealing with minor rogue states, preventing genocide and re-engineering unstable regions. People have sought explanations for the Kosovo war in vast and complex conspiracies. The fact is that the motivation was a complex web of domestic political concerns and a genuine belief that the primary mission was to improve the world.

The United States dealt with its concerns over Kosovo by conducting a 60-day bombing campaign designed to force Yugoslavia to withdraw from Kosovo and allow NATO forces in. The Yugoslav government, effectively the same as the Serbian government by then, showed remarkable resilience, and the air campaign was not nearly as effective as the air forces had hoped. The United States needed a war-ending strategy. This is where the Russians came in.

Russia was weak and ineffective, but it was Serbia's only major ally. The United States prevailed on the Russians to initiate diplomatic contacts and persuade the Serbs that their position was isolated and hopeless. The carrot was that the United State agreed that Russian peacekeeping troops would participate in Kosovo. This was crucial for the Serbians, as it seemed to guarantee the interests of Serbia in Kosovo, as well as the rights of Serbs living in Kosovo. The deal brokered by the Russians called for a withdrawal of the Serbian army from Kosovo and entry into Kosovo of a joint NATO-Russian force, with the Russians guaranteeing that Kosovo would remain part of Serbia.

This ended the war, but the Russians were never permitted -- let alone encouraged -- to take their role in Serbia. The Russians were excluded from the Kosovo Force (KFOR) decision-making process and were isolated from NATO's main force. When Russian troops took control of the airport in Pristina in Kosovo at the end of the war, they were surrounded by NATO troops.

In effect, NATO and the United States reneged on their agreement with Russia. Russian President Boris Yeltsin and the Russian Foreign Ministry caved in the face of this reneging, leaving the Russian military -- which had ordered the Kosovo intervention -- hanging. In 1999, this was a fairly risk-free move by the West. The Russians were in no position to act.

The degree to which Yeltsin's humiliation in Kosovo led to the rise of Vladimir Putin is not fully understood. Putin represented a faction in the intelligence-military community that regarded Kosovo as the last straw. There were, of course, other important factors leading to the rise of Putin, but the Russian perception that the United States had double-crossed them in an act of supreme contempt was a significant factor. Putin came to office committed to regaining Russian intellectual influence after Yeltsin's inertia.

The current decision by the United States and some European countries to grant independence to Kosovo must be viewed in this context. First, it is the only case in Yugoslavia in which borders are to shift because of the presence of a minority. Second, it continues the policy of re-engineering Yugoslavia. Third, it proceeds without either a U.N. or NATO mandate, as an action supported by independent nations -- including the United States and Germany. Finally, it flies in the face of Russian wishes.

This last one is the critical point. The Russians clearly are concerned that this would open the door for the further redrawing of borders, paving the way for Chechen independence movements, for example. But that isn't the real issue. The real issue is that Serbia is an ally of Russia, and the Russians do not want Kosovar independence to happen. From Putin's point of view, he came to power because the West simply wouldn't take Russian wishes seriously. If there were a repeat of that display of indifference, his own authority would be seriously weakened.

Putin is rebuilding the Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union. He is meeting with the Belarusians over reintegration. He is warning Ukraine not to flirt with NATO membership. He is reasserting Russian power in the Caucasus and Central Asia. His theme is simple: Russia is near and strong; NATO is far away and weak. He is trying to define Russian power in the region. Though Kosovo is admittedly peripheral to this region, if no European power is willing to openly challenge Russian troops in Kosovo, then Russia will have succeeded in portraying NATO as a weak and unreliable force.

If the United States and some European powers can create an independent Kosovo without regard to Russian wishes, Putin's prestige in Russia and the psychological foundations of his grand strategy will suffer a huge blow. If Kosovo is granted independence outside the context of the United Nations, where Russia has veto power, he will be facing the same crisis Yeltsin did. If he repeats Yeltsin's capitulation, he will face substantial consequences.

Putin and the Russians repeatedly have warned that they wouldn't accept independence for Kosovo, and that such an act would lead to an uncontrollable crisis. Thus far, the Western powers involved appear to have dismissed this. In our view, they shouldn't. It is not so much what Putin wants as the consequences for Putin if he does not act. He cannot afford to acquiesce. He will create a crisis.

Putin has two levers. One is economic. The natural gas flowing to Europe, particularly to Germany, is critical for the Europeans. Putin has a large war chest saved from high energy prices. He can live without exports longer than the Germans can live without imports. It is assumed that he wouldn't carry out this cutoff. This assumption does not take into account how important the Kosovo issue is to the Russians.

The second option is what we might call the "light military" option. Assume that Putin would send a battalion or two of troops by air to Belgrade, load them onto trucks and send them toward Pristina, claiming this as Russia's right under agreements made in 1999. Assume a squadron of Russian aircraft would be sent to Belgrade as well. A Russian naval squadron, including the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, already is headed to the Mediterranean. Obviously, this is not a force that could impose anything on NATO. But would the Germans, for example, be prepared to open fire on these troops?

If that happened, there are other areas of interest to Russia and the West where Russia could exert decisive military power, such as the Baltic states. If Russian troops were to enter the Baltics, would NATO rush reinforcements there to fight them? The Russian light military threat in Kosovo is that any action there could lead to a Russian reaction elsewhere.

The re-engineering of the Balkans always has assumed that there is no broader geopolitical price involved. Granting Kosovo independence would put Russia in a position in which interests that it regards as fundamental are challenged. Even if the West doesn't see why this should be the case, the Russians have made clear that it is so -- and have made statements essentially locking themselves into a response or forcing themselves to accept humiliation. Re-engineering a region where there is no risk is one thing; re-engineering a region where there is substantial risk is another.

In our view, the Russians would actually welcome a crisis. Putin wants to demonstrate that Russia is a great power. That would influence thinking throughout the former Soviet Union, sobering eastern Central Europe as well -- and Poland in particular. Confronting the West as an equal and backing it into a corner is exactly what he would like. In our view, Putin will seize the Kosovo issue not because it is of value in and of itself but because it gives him a platform to move his strategic policy forward.

The Germans have neither the resources nor the appetite for such a crisis. The Americans, bogged down in the Islamic world, are hardly in a position to deal with a crisis over Kosovo. The Russian view is that the West has not reviewed its policies in the Balkans since 1999 and has not grasped that the geopolitics of the situation have changed. Nor, in our view, has Washington or Berlin grasped that a confrontation is exactly what the Russians are looking for.

We expect the West to postpone independence again, and to keep postponing it. But the Albanians might force the issue by declaring unilateral independence. The Russians would actually be delighted to see this. But here is the basic fact: For the United States and its allies, Kosovo is a side issue of no great importance. For the Russians, it is both a hot-button issue and a strategic opportunity. The Russians won't roll over this time. And the asymmetry of perceptions is what crises are made of.

Distribution and Reprints

This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com. For media requests, partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or republication, please contact pr@stratfor.com.

[Guest]

Re: The End of America

It's interesting how emotional this topic can make people. My points were that this wasn't a particularly credible speaker for the issue and that "freedoms" as we understand them are a concept that can be used against us by an even modestly intelligent enemy. I read a lot of military history and I'm not seeing a lot of evidence of life carrying on on the homefront as before during wars of any kind. Vietnam was one example, perhaps. But then we weren't routinely giving student Visas to North Vietnamese students at the time, nor were they blowing things up outside their own country. This is a different kind of war indeed.

I would also add that you have to cooly analyze the risks vs the rewards of any actions. One action of eliminating all the "abuses" mentioned above would be a higher likelyhood of a catastrophic attack of some sort. In that scenario do you really think life as you know it would go on undisturbed after a dirty bomb or even chemical attack? Besides the devastation of your economic life (our consumption based economy is very fragile) my guess is they'd crack down hard to prevent further attacks, with the result being an even more oppressive regime than currently.

Conversely, if we allow just any action to be done 'for security" we could wind up in a slowly warming pot of tyranny. What's fine for them to do to some foreign agent might not be so great if we wind up under suspicion.

So you have to make your choices, and reasonable people can disagree on what is the best course. But pure totalitarianism nor "freedom as usual" is not the answer.

It's important to understand that philisophical purity to either extreme is the real danger. Life doesn't always fit into neat concepts like that.

That said, so far I can't complain about the results. I expected many many attacks carried out by this point in time. Perhaps the measures taken have done the trick. Perhaps the US actions in Iraq had an indirect "Khadaffi" effect we haven't realised. Or perhaps it's just in their plan to not attack at the present time. The key to a good guerrilla war plan is patience, they say.

[bart]

Re: The End of America

This article is a wonderful illustration of why I regard a very large group of Americans who are heartily cheering Ron Paul's message of a "new American non-interventionism" as a bunch of wilfully naive people who urgently need to familiarize themselves with the implications of "power vacuums" - which have been amply demonstrated in history to create almost as much havoc, disintegration of nations, and bloodshed as have the interventions themselves.

There is no "power vacuum" implied by any position of Ron Paul's, unless one believes empires are necessary and that no other solutions work.



More Reasons to Like Ron Paul…
For those who may be still 'undecided'

by Elizabeth Cameron
by Elizabeth Cameron

Policy positions aside, what follows are characteristics in a person that would serve us very, very well in a President.
1. He tells the truth.
It is not fun to hear that our country is going bankrupt, or that our government is out of control, or that we are losing our liberties at a dizzying rate. It is scary and upsetting. But if we are to regain the country that we like to think we live in, the truth must be heard. Dr. Paul discusses with great frankness the actual reasons for troublesome conditions we now face, and while this may be bitter medicine, it does point the way to reversing the spiral and regaining our footing as a peaceful, free, and prosperous nation.
2. He is unflappable.
When others are in an uproar, Congressman Paul demonstrates a remarkable level of equanimity. On the Tonight Show with Jay Leno (Jan 7th), for example, he discussed FOX’s shameless decision to exclude him from their "Republican debate" without the slightest hint of rancor or hostility; he even showed a sense of humor. When he has been scoffed at in debates, he has ignored the jeers and gone on to explain his positions in a mild and deliberate manner. This calm demeanor would be a great asset in dealing with the myriad clamorings that make their way into the Oval Office.
3. His story does not change with the political winds.
For many long years, Dr. Paul has been talking about the same crucial topics: sound money; honoring the Constitution; protecting life, liberty and property; friendly relations with other nations and entangling alliances with none; maintaining a strong national defense; honoring our veterans, etc. It doesn’t seem to matter where he goes or who is listening – the story remains the same. Wouldn’t it be nice to know that the President of the United States had an unswerving commitment to principles of freedom that you could depend upon, once he was in office?
4. He is polite.
If you notice how Dr. Paul behaves in debates, you will see that any annoyance he demonstrates is strictly on policy matters. No matter how much pressure he is under, he is unfailingly polite and respectful, and does not join the game of tossing out rude barbs to trip up or embarrass other candidates. Consider how important might be the simple fact of Presidential good manners in dealing with testy foreign nations.
5. He obeys his oath of office.
When Congressmen (and Presidents) take office, they take the following oath: I, loyal citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." In ten terms in Congress, Dr. Paul has an untarnished record of adhering to this oath. Who else can say that? Nobody. It is, sad to say, practically unheard of. And if we ever needed it in anybody, surely it is in the head of the Executive branch.
6. He is open about what he is doing.
An example of this can be found on Dr. Paul’s campaign website, where in prominent display are the totals, minute by minute, of money flowing into his coffers from campaign contributors. I’ve seen no other candidate do this. It is a small example, perhaps, but it is telling.
7. He is neither owned nor cowed by special interests.
In his years in the House of Representatives, Congressman Paul has proven beyond doubt that he cannot be bought. Lobbyists, I am told, don’t even bother trying to get in to see him, since they know that if government funding of their pet projects would be unconstitutional, they are wasting their time. The pressures on a President to bow to powerful interests are sure to be tremendous, and a man who can stand up to them is a very great man indeed.
8. He believes in the America of our Founders.
It has been a slow and painful awakening for some of us to realize that the America in which we now live is not the one our Founders gave us. Sadly, our peace, prosperity and freedom are all under assault. We still have a lot to be thankful for, there is no doubt of that, but we cannot afford to let our freedom keep slipping away, and I want the guy who remembers where we came from and wants to make good the original Revolution.
9. He is modest.
When Congressman Paul talks about his success, he attributes it to the popularity of the ideas he espouses. It is the ideas, not the man, that are carrying this movement, as he has repeatedly said. But the truth is that in the world today, it takes a giant of a man to carry this torch, and he, who is such a man, carries it with grace and modesty. This suggests to me that he cares more for the ideas and for the freedom of his countrymen than he does for his own ambition, and who wouldn’t want a President like that?
10. He addresses the issues that matter.
There is always political noise about something, but Dr. Paul cuts under the fray to get at what is causing situations to occur. This sort of approach lends itself to solutions. It is interesting to consider that under a Paul administration, the tide might be reversed, and we might actually regain some of our freedom and prosperity and peace.
11. He is courageous.
If we ever needed a brave man in office, it is now. The pressures that threaten freedom in our land are formidable, and a mere politician, I think, could not stem the tide. Only a statesman could do that, and in Dr. Paul, by the grace of God, we have such a man. Even he could not do it alone, though, and it is heart-warming to see the great numbers of people who are rising up to rally around this cause. This is a movement of historic proportions, and may give us the best chance we’ll ever have to restore the foundations of our Republic.
12. He is a nice person.
The President is the first and most public Ambassador of the United States of America. Dr. Paul shows in many ways that he would uphold this responsibility admirably. He demonstrates through example the tenets of his faith (like wanting to treat other nations the way we would like other nations to treat us); he demonstrates professionalism and honesty, scholarship and humor, compassion and integrity. By example alone, he would improve America’s standing in the world.

January 9, 2008

Elizabeth Cameron is a writer and farmer who lives and works on a small, diversified homestead in Illinois.

[Guest]

Re: The End of America

There is no "power vacuum" implied by any position of Ron Paul's, unless one believes empires are necessary and that no other solutions work

Bart - I understand all the above cited reasons why Ron Paul represents a clean sweep of superior attributes returning to government - I understand it quite as well as you do, and I also heartily approve of them. However the only comment in your rejoinder to do with foreign policy is the above, and it is not an analysis of American entanglements in global international relations, so much as an assertion. A large chunk of the world is intimately structured around that America's misguided empire building from many past decades - it has accreted over 70 years). America is committing the same classic error of multiple declining great powers before it, and is accelerating it's decline by persisting in this error. A retreat from this now questionable foreign policy is indeed urgent, not only to improve our very poor standing in the world but also to shore up an increasingly enfeebled country.

But here's the real point I was trying to make (which seems to have been ignored) if you pull out the foreign policy underpinnings of that accreted foreign policy and introduce Ron Paul's, you will get a lot of 'hyperactivity' in the very large pile of status quo interconnections between nations worldwide resulting. Make no mistake - Ron Paul's foreign policy views and resulting change of stance will represent a massive earthquake in the way America's foreign commitments are percieved by those counterparties. This is equivalent to pulling a stick out from under a sandcastle and expecting there will be no repercussions. It is a radical change, and it promises some very real dangers, in highly unpredictable configurations and extent. Americans have a national trait - on the one hand they consider themselves a great country - on the other hand they have this blissful belief that they can take on or reject large foreign policy commitments in the world without causing even a whole series of resulting earthquakes.

I am certainly not asking or suggesting you post a long dissertation on why a withdrawal or shrinkage of American "unsolicited engagement' abroad may or may not have repercussions in the world. It would be a waste of effort in fact, as I actually fully agree with you - empire is disastrous. If you thought my post above was an apology for empire you have misunderstood it.

The only point I wished to make, but it seems to get fogged up in a lot of people's inflamed feelings about the grievous recent abuse of "American Empire", is that a large chunk of geopolitical circumstances have accumulated around this ill-conceived empire building in the past 60 years, and a Ron Paul presidency putting these non-interventionist ideas into practice will represent a *very* radical break with that. My point: To assume this can be accomplished with *less* global disruption and danger, as opposed to *more* disruption and danger, in the ensuing decade, is a very naive assumption.

I really do protest what I read here, as your assumption I've been posting as an 'apologist for empire'. This requires a little more thinking through than simply chalking it up to that.

[bart]

Re: The End of America

The only point I wished to make, but it seems to get fogged up in a lot of people's inflamed feelings about the grievous recent abuse of "American Empire", is that a large chunk of geopolitical circumstances have accumulated around this ill-conceived empire building in the past 60 years, and a Ron Paul presidency putting these non-interventionist ideas into practice will represent a *very* radical break with that. My point: To assume this can be accomplished with *less* global disruption and danger, as opposed to *more* disruption and danger, in the ensuing decade, is a very naive assumption.

I really do protest what I read here, as your assumption I've been posting as an 'apologist for empire'. This requires a little more thinking through than simply chalking it up to that.

There is some truth to my comment having been a set of assertions but I also believe your post was far from a full and unbiased treatment too.
I also don't see you as posting as an 'apologist for empire'.

No matter what occurs in the intermediate term future, with or without Ron Paul in office, there will be truly huge changes in the world - probably larger than at any other time in history on a relative basis in the disruption and danger and many other areas.

My basic point is that I believe that the end results and effects and especially the long term effects of Ron Paul being in office would be worth the disruption and danger.

TANSTAAFL applies too.