taking the War on Terror to new highs

[giuliano]

Sleepless troops may be sent into battle on a high
July 31, 2004

link

On April 17, 2002, an incident just outside Kandahar, Afghanistan, thrust one of the military's least favourite subjects into the media spotlight.

Two US F-16 pilots, Major Harry Schmidt and Major William Umbach, mistakenly bombed a Canadian infantry unit, killing four and injuring eight. But while the friendly fire incident was terrible in itself, worse was to come for the military. In the ensuing legal case it was claimed that the pilots had been pressured into taking amphetamines - speed - to sharpen their senses.

An investigation by The Guardian has found that over the past six years Britain's Ministry of Defence has bought significant quantities of a new drug, Provigil, designed to help people with specific medical conditions shrug off the effects of tiredness.

Preliminary studies in the US show that pilots popping the pills stay alert even after 40 hours without sleep. Other tests have looked at how troops function after staying awake for 85 hours on the drug.

According to figures released by the Defence Medical Supplies Agency, which provides medical items "to sustain UK military capability", the ministry has bought more than 24,000 Provigil tablets since 1998, at prices at least 10 per cent below those charged to the British health service.

Released under the open government code, the figures show that orders for the pills peaked in 2001, the year allied forces entered Afghanistan, with the next largest order delivered in 2002, the year before troops invaded Iraq.

Provigil is licensed in Britain for alleviating daytime tiredness in people suffering from the rare sleep disorder narcolepsy and a condition called obstructive sleep apnoea.

Its introduction in Britain has triggered concern that it will rapidly be abused, becoming a lifestyle drug.

Its side effects, British Government sources say, include nervousness, insomnia, excitation, irritability, tremors, dizziness and headaches.

It may also cause "gastrointestinal disturbances", including nausea and abdominal pain, dry mouth, loss of appetite and cardiovascular effects such as high blood pressure, palpitations and tachycardia (rapid heartbeat).

Military trials were set up to see how far the benefits of Provigil could be pushed.

Researchers in France were quickly impressed; the French Foreign Legion took the drug as early as the Gulf War in 1991.

While Britain's largest research and development company, Qinetiq, formerly owned by the ministry, refuses to discuss work it might have done with Provigil, and has yet to publish any studies on the drug, US military researchers are more open.

US testing has found that the effect of caffeine lasts for four to six hours and amphetamines for eight to 10 hours, while Provigil lasts typically for 10 to 12 hours.

What was still uncertain, said Greg Belenky, of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in Maryland, was whether Provigil was better at helping people regain their ability to perform complex tasks on little sleep.

There is a downside in a drug that works for so long.

"In any combat operation, there may be an unexpected lull, and so a chance to sleep; so a short-acting drug can have benefits. You've a better chance of being able to sleep if the opportunity arises," Dr Belenky said.

The Guardian

[Paavo]

Crazy.

Taking uppers for one fight, once a lifetime is one thing - but to actually make it a habit throughout a whole operation is another.

I've enjoyed speed multiple times in my life and it's a funny drug, as it does make one more alert and precice (as far as one can tell, not very objective I know), but the day after is horrible. You can't eat - can certainly not sleep well (duh), and you're overall shaky and anxious - pretty much the opposite of being alert and sober. I can't see the point in this, on a long term perspective.
Just the thought of armed forces high on speed is a sick thought to me.

[PatrickHenry]

Tip of the ice berg...
Look at this article: http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd01132003.html

Pentagon dark lord Donald Rumsfeld is shoveling billions of tax dollars into the research furnaces of federal laboratories and private universities across the land in the wide-ranging effort to spawn "super soldiers," fired by drugs and electromagnetic "brain zaps" to fight without ceasing for days on end. The work is being directed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)--yes, the same outfit now laboring under convicted terrorist-conspirator John Poindexter to build the "Total Information Awareness" network that will allow the government to monitor the electronic records and communications of every citizen. The DARPA "war fighter enhancement" programs--an acceleration of bipartisan biotinkering that's been going on for years--will involve injecting young men and women with hormonal, neurological and genetic concoctions; implanting microchips and electrodes in their bodies to control their internal organs and brain functions; and plying them with drugs that deaden some of their normal human tendencies: the need for sleep, the fear of death, the reluctance to kill their fellow human beings. The research is "very aggressive and wide open," says Admiral Stephen Baker of the Center for Defense Information. Indeed, the U.S. Special Operations Command envisions the creation of "iron bodied and iron willed personnel" who can "resist the mental and physiological effects of sleep deprivation" while relying on "ergogenic substances" to "manage" the "environmental and mentally induced stress" of the battlefield. Their bodies juiced, their brains swaddled in Prozacian haze, the enhanced warfighters can churn relentlessly, remorselessly toward dominion. And the term "creation" is not just fanciful rhetoric: some of the research now underway involves actually altering the genetic code of soldiers, modifying bits of DNA to fashion a new type of human specimen, one that functions like a machine, killing tirelessly for days and nights on end. These mutations will "revolutionize the contemporary order of battle" and guarantee "operational dominance across the whole range of potential U.S. military employments," the DARPA wizards enthuse. Of course, the Pentagon is not waiting on sci-fi technology to enhance the physical abilities of its warfighters; old-fashioned off-the-shelf "additives" have long been shoved down soldiers' throats. For example, the use of amphetamines for pilots has been widespread for decades; during the first Bush-Saddam War, whole squadrons were cranked up on the stuff. Not only is the gobbling of speed officially sanctioned, it's actively encouraged, even implicitly mandated--careers can be derailed for pilots who refuse to drug themselves.

I fear Pentagon programs that will result in unstoppable killers who don't identify with me as another earnest citizen of their nation. If these "soldiers" could have their consciences seared or be mind-controlled in a "Manchurian Candidate" style, their controllers could become the all-powerful warlords of the planet.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/...1566309313.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/mckracken2.html

Reasonable people disagree about the morality and wisdom of various kinds of genetic engineering, but I think all of us can agree that the prospect of the U.S. military creating genetically enhanced super-soldiers is worrisome, to say the least. If soldiers can be modified at will to stay awake longer, why can’t they be modified to be faster, stronger, or more ruthless? Why not more obedient? Why not incapacitate the soldier’s ability to feel guilt so he won’t have any moral qualms when ordered to carry out orders? In fact, as a recent article in the Village Voice reported, researchers at several universities are developing drugs designed to dampen the emotions associated with memories of traumatic events. This could allow soldiers who witness (or participate in) acts of brutality to prevent their memories from being associated with remorse and other messy emotions. According to bioethicist Leon Kass, this would be "the morning-after pill for just about anything that produces regret, remorse, pain, or guilt." Now, this may be so much science fiction fantasizing, and such a thing may never even be possible. The intersections between human biology, consciousness, and free will may very well remain mysteries. But it’s deeply disturbing that the Pentagon apparently doesn’t regard the inner citadel of the soldier’s soul to be off limits from chemical and genetic manipulation.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0304/baard.php

edit to add more links and quotes

[Compugasm]

So, what is the argument?
* That soldiers shouldn't be taking drugs at all.
* They should be taking caffine and not Provigil.
* Provigil caused them to bomb Canadians.
* The Dark Lord is building a massive clone army.

[PatrickHenry]

giuliano didn't define the parameters of debate in this topic. My post was off-topic, but related. Do you fear conscienceless super-soldiers, Compugasm? Is there any point at which you would resist the power structure and find yourself face-to-face with an implacable foe of nearly limitless ability? Think "Terminator."

[Compugasm]

I'm a coward. A few years ago, I was pulled over for not coming to a complete stop on a right hand turn. I kept my hands on the stearing wheel, made no sudden movements, spoke before I handed the officer my license. After that, I answered questions in a calm manner.

I guess my point is, I'd probably have a tough time revolting against the police shooting me with beanbags or sticky foam. It's almost inconceivable to picture myself taking up arms against the cyber-warriors of today with nano technology armor and attack helicopters. So, to give these soldiers yet "limitless" abilities, and fight Terminators for Canadian Provigil is not the avenue I would persue to face off against the power structure.

BTW, after I showed the Gestapo my papers, I was let off with a warning as long as I reported any Zionist activities to the local Bund and swore my undying loyalty to the Dark Lord.

[PatrickHenry]

Good one Compugasm... You know my proclivities, heh, heh.

Seriously though, warriors without any conscience because of special drugs, complete with the ability to fight for days without rest. A war machine with technical capabilities that are just now coming into view like blood loss stopping clothing, battlefield comm, night vision. Who could guarantee that these would not be used to render citizenship in a republic a relict?

On another topic within the terror genre, what do terrorists want? Are they just mindless killers? Or do they have an agenda? Would it be worth the effort to understand the goals and try to negotiate if there are any negotiables? Unless terrorists are entirely irrational, there must be some means of accommodation...

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, Who could guarantee that these would not be used to render citizenship in a republic a relict?

A democrat.

On another topic within the terror genre, what do terrorists want?

Ask yourself what you want, and a terrorist would have the same answer. Food, money, jobs, water, women, freedom? It's the method of how those things are obtained cause conflict.

Are they just mindless killers? Or do they have an agenda?

I just hear a story of a woman was on a suspected terrorist list. She traveled to South Africa and got a passport. Then traveled the the Arab Emirites. From there she made her way to London. Next, on to Mexico. Then, she crossed the border someplace in Texas by "crawing through the bush". I think that demonstrates she has an agenda.

Would it be worth the effort to understand the goals and try to negotiate if there are any negotiables?

Your setting me up for a straw man.

Unless terrorists are entirely irrational, there must be some means of accommodation...

They want the same things as you do. How high are you willing to up the negotiation ante?

[giuliano]

Originally posted by Paavo, I've enjoyed speed multiple times in my life and it's a funny drug, as it does make one more alert and precice (as far as one can tell, not very objective I know), but the day after is horrible.

i agree, that is certainly my experience.

to think that personnel are piloting $50 million aircraft and aiming sidewinder missiles at 'enemy targets' high on this stuff - from my experience - is just staggering.

it can make you more alert, but it's a fine line between the benefits and everything just going downhill in a matter of minutes to the point where you can believe everyone is out to get you.

[giuliano]

Originally posted by Compugasm, BTW, after I showed the Gestapo my papers, I was let off with a warning as long as I reported any Zionist activities to the local Bund and swore my undying loyalty to the Dark Lord.

excellent. your loyalty to the reich is beyond question. don't forget the rally in the city square on sunday, and bring your books!

[PatrickHenry]

giuliano, if it's ok with you, I would like to hijack this thread to the other topic I mentioned back a little: dealing with terrorism.

I found this resource on Low Intensity Conflict: http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/bac...0/Vol26_4/4.htm

In the 1970s, the US conceptualised LIC as a broad range of conflicts less intense than full-scale conventional warfare.2 They were considered low-intensity in nature because the country combating such LIC usually committed relatively limited military resources. However, the same cannot be said for the party initiating the LIC as they may involve all that they have. The US Joint Chiefs of Staff's more definitive explanation of LIC in 1986 is as follows: "Low-intensity conflict is a limited politico-military struggle to achieve political, social, economic, or psychological objectives. It is often protracted and ranges from diplomatic, economic, and psychosocial pressures through terrorism and insurgency. Low-intensity conflict is generally confined to a geographic area and is often characterized by constraints on the weaponry, tactics, and level of violence. LIC involves the actual or contemplated use of military means up to just below the threshold of battle between regular armed forces".3 There are a few key elements in this definition. First, it states that the objective of LIC does not end at the military level alone but transcends to political, social, economic and even psychological levels. This is important as some observers may assume LIC as an exclusive military affair. Second, it makes clear the upper limits on the use of military force beyond which the concept no longer applies. With so many possible types of conflicts under the LIC classification, it is not surprising that disagreements would abound when governments try to come up with measures to counter them as each conflict deserves unique treatment. To presume that a single general approach can counter such conflicts is a fallacy and the onset of defeat for governments. Although conflicts like counter-insurgency, anti-terrorism and guerrilla warfare are popularly associated to LIC, other conflicts like peacekeeping missions, drug interdiction, and contingency operations have been known to be classified as low-intensity operations as well. This paper will focus on the first three types of LIC. It must be emphasised that LIC is not primarily a military matter. The aim is not military conquest, but social control, for whose attainment military means can be employed as a tool for resolving the conflict. Conceptually, LIC is primarily politically oriented and requires an integrated policy approach containing military elements. As such, the definition of LIC should not concentrate on the military level of conflict, but on its political character. Winning in LIC, therefore requires an accurate understanding of what it really is. Victory Defined Many debates have gone into the definition of what victory in warfare means. The Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary defines 'victory' as 'a situation in which you gain complete success, for example, in defeating an opponent in a war or in any other hard struggle'. By this definition, victory in LIC would mean being able to resolve the conflicts by completely eradicating groups that wage such LIC through their removal, surrender, or by winning them over. From the many internal wars that have been waged, it is clear that it is not easy to completely remove such insurgency or guerrilla movements once they have established themselves, as in the case of the Irish Republican Army (IRA). But is victory in LIC merely the termination of such groups, or should governments concentrate on ending the causes fought by these groups? Often the coups, revolts and revolutions may be prevented and defeated, but the causes for which these are fought for are seldom completely defeated.

Can we agree that the "War on Terror" is, of necessity, a low intensity conflict? This would have to include the insurgency against US siezure in Iraq. If so, here is some advice from the above source:

attaining military success alone may not be enough to achieve an overall success in the war against LIC. Lasting victory in LIC comes more from achieving political success rather than military or economic success. Unlike conventional wars where defeating the opposing military forces would usually secure victory for the state, the mere capture or destruction of such LIC forces would not totally remove their influence on the populace due to the existence of sympathisers. New groups would simply spring up to continue the fight since the root cause of LIC has not been resolved. The political aspects in LIC therefore take paramount importance over the military and other aspects.

Will US hegemony ever be tolerable in the Middle East? Is a long-term US military garrison there even feasible in the political sphere or will it always be a burr under the saddle, causing endless pain to both parties? What I am asking is: "Does the TerrWar require a US military presence there or is this 'solution' only making matters worse?"

If policy analysts have already got the answer to this, (which is "YES" I expect), then what is the real purpose of the invasion, siezure, occupation and garrisoning? Is it not to justify further conflict, militarization of the economy, and ultimately the police/security state?

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PatrickHenry)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Will US hegemony ever be tolerable in the Middle East?[/b]

It works here?

Originally posted by PatrickHenry+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PatrickHenry)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>... the real purpose of the invasion, siezure, occupation and garrisoning?[/b]

That depends on how far you belive the conspiracy goes. We still don't know if there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll.

<!--QuoteBegin-PatrickHenry@
Does the TerrWar require a US military presence there[/quote]
What is "a presence"? Like, 2000 soldiers or 140K? I'm not a military field commander. I don't know the number of personel required. I don't think the color of the helmet matters one bit to a terrorist.

<!--QuoteBegin-PatrickHenry
Is it not to justify further conflict, militarization of the economy, and ultimately the police/security state?[/quote]
Anyway I belive GWB (Kerry, USA, all of us) are not bent on establishing Haliburton of America and enslaving the world. The abuses of our system happen on much smaller scales (the enemy within) which lead to that end.

[Comrade]

I was reading PH's first post...
I was wondering, since when is the American Military the enemy? I don't buy into the whole police state, US-Army-is-there-to-suppress-and-oppress-us thing.
I think the same about other much-maligned orgs like CIA and FBI as well...
By the way, if there is ever going to be police state type stuff, it will be the FBI enforcing it. CIA was the counterpart to only PART of the KGB (the foreign intelligence division), which is what most people consider it a counterpart to.

I also think the "soldiers without consciences" is a myth to scare people (and the product of watching too many movies). Appeal to emotion is a fallacy in any case, no?

Isn't making our soldiers more effective one of our goals? I would think everyone is in support of making our military more effective while reducing casualties.

I'm not saying drugs are the best way to do that, certainly not speed, but it is a resource that should at least be studied for effectiveness (other drugs, not speed).

[PatrickHenry]

Compugasm,
What about the fourteen bases under construction in Iraq as of now? Would you say that is a significant presence if they remain garrisoned? http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/200...uring-bases.htm

From the ashes of abandoned Iraqi army bases, U.S. military engineers are overseeing the building of an enhanced system of American bases designed to last for years.

Your reference to the grassy knoll was a cynical(and IMO unwarranted) slap at my suspicions regarding a "hidden" agenda, but the fact is that the Project for a New American Century proposed exactly this series of events in 1998 to further their vision of American foreign policy in the Middle East: http://www.bushpresident2004.com/pnac.htm

In a letter to President Bill Clinton January 26, 1998, PNAC openly urged "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power." This plan included the use of force, if needed, to remove Saddam and to establish a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East. In the same letter, PNAC warned that Saddam could potentially place "a significant portion of the world's supply of oil ... at hazard," and advised the United States to act without U.N. cooperation if necessary.

In 2000 they codified it further:

Take military control of the Persian Gulf region through the establishment of permanent bases.

This from a group that has assumed the top positions in the Administration:

The new Bush Administration took power soon after this report, and included Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant to the President I. Lewis Libby, and Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard Perle. Of the eighteen signers of the 1998 PNAC letter to Clinton calling for Saddam's removal, ten currently serve in the Bush Administration.

Not sure what you mean in this exchange:
Me: Will US hegemony ever be tolerable in the Middle East?
Compugasm: It works here?

Did you look into the resource I provided? It seems to spell out that military efforts in Low Intensity Conflicts are often counterproductive. You didn't address that point in your response. I conjectured that the policy makers have already reached this conclusion, in which case the continued US Military presence in the Middle East must have another rationale.

Militarization of the economy: http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1665.htm

Bush released on September 20th 2001 the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier. In many places, it uses exactly the same language to describe America's new place in the world. Recall that PNAC demanded an increase in defense spending to at least 3.8% of GDP. Bush's proposed budget for next year asks for $379 billion in defense spending, almost exactly 3.8% of GDP.

I am not sure how to address your skepticism regarding the burgeoning police/security state. Those who have not looked intently into the issue tend to dismiss it as a conspiracy theory. But consider: the USA PATRIOT Act was passed without debate and has been renounced by communities all over America for its unAmerican abridgements of basic freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution. Are the two issues unrelated? I hope so, for a piecemeal strategy is easier to counter by those who prize freedom.

The National Security Strategy announced by the Bush Administration has a lot of high sounding rhetoric:

the United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom across the globe.We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world. The events of September 11, 2001, taught us that weak states, like Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our national interests as strong states. Poverty does not make poor people into terrorists and murderers. Yet poverty, weak institutions, and corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartels within their borders.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssall.html Yet the free markets don't seem to apply to favorite contractors in Iraq. They get no-bid deals. Drug cartels? Americans have long been aware that the CIA is the highest volume drug runner on the planet: http://www.ciadrugs.com/ The Agency has been given special dispensation to avoid scrutiny of its operations in this area. National Security, you see...

But back to the TerrWar and the US presence in the MidEast: Will the nationalist locals ever be at peace with GI Joe and Jane breathing down their necks? They have been occupied in the past and have ultimately thrown the invaders out: http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/iraq.htm

Britain's withdrawal from Iraq was a swift one. It came with the overthrow of the Hashemite regime that Britain had so assidiously cultivated over the years. The Hashemites had never fully gained legitimacy as rulers in the eyes of the Iraqis. They were regarded as little more than foreign rulers who followed every beck and call of their British masters. Constant tribal bickerings and uprisings weakened the government in outlying areas of Iraq, whereas in the main cities, political dissatisfaction was expressed in the ballot boxes and the free press that Britain had expressly created for the country. Political instability was a concern for the entire period of Hashemite rule, they regularly had to call upon the police and the military to maintain order in the country. The British and the Hashemites were so fully dependent upon one another that they both became even more alienated and distant from the Iraqi people; hatred for one institution translating into hatred for the other. The creation of Israel further inflamed passions and brought the British into even further disrepute. And events in Suez in 1956 also galvanised Arab opinion against the British and dented Britain's prestige and ability to defend its interests at the same time as it increased Arab self-confidence and self-importance. The British were in no position to help their puppet regime when the Hashemite King made his final call for help to protect him from the people that he purported to lead. Their all-embracing dependence upon one another meant that with the fall of the Hashemites, British power and influence dissappeared abruptly.

Will military power quell Iraqi and other national patriotism and dedication to self-rule, not being puppets of the US or any other entity?

[Compugasm]

Oops, ignore this.

[Compugasm]

Jesus, I've just realized I've been reading and researching this for hours now. PH, I can't answer all of it now so don't consider my reply complete:

Originally posted by PatrickHenry,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PatrickHenry,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Would you say that is a significant presence if they remain garrisoned?[/b]

Yeah, I probably would. I would also say that standing around in the sand for many years is not a good idea either. Good thing those bases "will last for years" too. Normally the crap we build is falling down around our heads. I mean, seriously what are they saying? We should pat some sand together and call it a day? "Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy chief of operations for the coalition in Iraq, said the military engineers are trying to prepare for any eventuality." That is probably a good idea. Isn't govt supposed to do those things? According to this article, we'll be leaving in 2006. Should we leave the "Puppet Regime" standing around in a pile of ashes? Exit strategy, no exit strategy, make up your mind because you can't complain that we don't know what we're doing and the entire thing was so carefully masterminded from the begining at the same time.

Originally posted by PatrickHenry,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PatrickHenry,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>regarding a "hidden" agenda[/b]

The PNAC is a non-profit, educational organization. My my, look at all those previous employees. The site seems to have good info. Why didn't Sandy Berger come to this site rather than the archives? So, they make recommendations like making the military stronger. Why? Did Clinton make it weaker and at the same time piss terrorists off by lobbing missles into Baghdad? Did I miss that part. It's just evil evil evil USA. Maybe the .8 increase they recommend wasn't enough.

We're trying to fight an information war against politicians, and we don't have any information. We'll get it from blacked out reports, or the New York Times muckrakers? The same publication so guilty of fear mongering and misreporting they've even had to print a public apology for it?

Connect the dots of lies from Saddam -> Osama -> Chilabi -> Curve Ball -> Al-Jazera -> Putin -> Mi-6 -> CIA -> NSA -> Bush/Kerry -> Rep&Dems -> Micheal Moore -> Media -> to you and I sucking at the teat of truth? I can't follow the X-files that far. I'm just going to choose the liar that won't cut off my head.

Many other media sources have had to make apologies. I'm glad they had to eat crow cause I made a "prediction" when i first got to this board they would start changing.

<!--QuoteBegin-PatrickHenry,@
Will US hegemony ever be tolerable in the Middle East?[/quote]
What I meant is, there are people in USA, that don't tolerate "the hegemony in the Middle East"?

<!--QuoteBegin-PatrickHenry,
military efforts in Low Intensity Conflicts are often counterproductive.[/quote]
I'm not done replying, but have to cut this short.... There are too many rules. Basically, send a million Communist Mongols thru Iraq and in three months it'll be "stable".

[Compugasm]

...CONTINUED:
It's said that GWB is not doing enough about "the war". I'm not debating that. I've heard that Kerry (or the 911 commish, can't remember) has recommended an Intelligence Czar. Is the czar elected? If so, he'll run fund raising campaigns like a Senator. Who is he accountable to if he's appointed? It certainly isn't the President. This Czar MUST act outside the bounds of Presidential authority to get something accomplished. This should send you reeling PH.

People, such as yourself, distrust our government so much, or GWB specifically, they're willing to take the military from the President, and give it to an appointed official, or government agency? I'm sorry, I'm not giving GWB/JFK or anyone else the absolution of responsibility. Did't you point out to me that "Transparentcy in government" was suspicious? The Patriot Act is better than a Czar. Would you want Senator Kerry as an Intelligence Czar?

[Michael Savage rant]
We need to "take the handcuffs off our military, they have less power than the LAPD". Kerry's solution is to re-organize the govt flowchart, and create another layer of bureaucracy? We need to let the "B's" fly.
[/Michael Savage rant]

At this point Savage gets a little colorful in his description about blackening the skys with bombs and such. The point I take away from him: everyone (Reps and Dems) know we need to "do more" but how that comes to pass will either sacrifice a few rights now, rather than more later on. So, if you don't support your government now, later on they will have no choice but to use more stringent methods.

Originally posted by PatrickHenry+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PatrickHenry)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I am not sure how to address your skepticism regarding the burgeoning police/security state.[/b]

I'll talk about that in the new thread you started for it.

Originally posted by PatrickHenry+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PatrickHenry)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yet the free markets don't seem to apply to favorite contractors in Iraq. They get no-bid deals. Drug cartels?[/b]

Poverty does not make poor people into terrorists and murderers. Weak institutions and corruption makes them vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartels within their borders.

It's TRUE to say Haliburton was unfairly given no-bid contracts. There isn't anyone to bid against. Say PatrickHenry wants to build a fleet of 50 fishing boats, would you goto the local marina, or Daiwoo? IMO, It's not that Iraq doens't have smart people, machinery, labor... How do you co-ordinate all those resources and get something "stable" when your standing in a sand pile?

From what I understand, the entire country of Iraq is like 1920 Chicago. Gangsters like Al Capone run everything. Think what the USA would be like if John Gotti ran the entire country.

In Iraq, some mobs are crime familys with hired henchmen. Some are outside groups with backing from private funders and such. Still others are traders who control the black market and spill over the open borders. Some organized, some not. Remember the LA Riots? No logic to it. Just gonna go out and bust some caps and it doesn't matter who, or what is in front of them. They're gonna burn it down or shoot it. Taken together, this forms the insurgency. But, they all get rich and are supoorted by tribal alliances and fuels the recruitment.

Originally posted by PatrickHenry Americans have long been aware that the CIA is the highest volume drug runner on the planet

Drug running never existed until the CIA sets up the market for it? Don't we at least have a system where those people could be punished? I don't think it's even legal for soldiers to drink alcohol in Iraq. This USA soldier in IRAQ, was sentenced to 15yrs in prison for carjacking. Your argument seems to be that because these things happen, we shouldn't be there. I'm not justifying these activities.

Originally posted by PatrickHenry Will the nationalist locals ever be at peace with GI Joe and Jane breathing down their necks?

They already are. It's the insurgents who are not.

<!--QuoteBegin-PatrickHenry@
Will military power quell Iraqi and other national patriotism and dedication ...[/quote]
That's the wrong questions. Your not trying to quell patriotism. Since when is a Syrian patriotic to Iraq? He isn't. No more so then you are patriotic to Canada. If a Jihad army started taking over Canada, Americans would be spilling over the borders to fight.

<!--QuoteBegin-PatrickHenry
..to self-rule, not being puppets of the US or any other entity?[/quote]
They aren't fighting USA for dedication to self rule. If they were fighting for self rule, Saddam would've been killed 4 months after being elected 30+ years ago. But, they have been fighting the "other entity" a long time now.