as they did with with Iraq. Don't you remember all the build up to the evil Saddam? Don't you see all the build up the the evil Iran? Even on the night of March 19 I believed someone would stop them. I don't have that much faith any more.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/04/03/MN306918.DTLOn Wednesday, CNN didn't deny that it knew anything about the war's start date, but a network official, speaking only on condition of anonymity, said picking the 19th was merely a good guess. The official said CNN's reporters have a lot of good government contacts and various dates had been tossed around.
Other networks were also making guesses -- a source at CBS said the news department was convinced it was March 20 -- but those musings began roughly two weeks after CNN's "guess" and just before the war started. If your memory can rush back through the fog of war, you'll recall that on March 4, it was diplomacy -- or faltering diplomacy -- that dominated the headlines. It wasn't until more than a week later, when the British suddenly proposed March 17 as a drop-dead date for U.N. Security Council bickering and Iraqi compliance, that a start date was even imaginable.
After that, President Bush announced his now famous 48-hour deadline and, when the 48 hours ran out -- on Wednesday, March 19 -- war started.
War and Globalization
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3117338213439292490&q=Hijacking+Catastrophe&total=29&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7 Hijacking Catastrophe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SltOy_F6ZII&mode=related&search=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlcpXBFOXA&mode=related&search=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZaWh0cJPQ&mode=related&search=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8S_vOZqJbE&mode=related&search=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GT7ti8LZ6A&mode=related&search=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkOtqGNJ8qI&mode=related&search=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C02QHS0D44&mode=related&search=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlcpXBFOXA&mode=related&searchhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kBX00TR-aA&mode=related&search=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jghh00bn_DA&mode=related&search=“Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic.”
She's present in our country right now, just waiting to make her - to carry out her divine missionhttp://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/27/1454229 CHALMERS JOHNSON: Nemesis was the ancient Greek goddess of revenge, the punisher of hubris and arrogance in human beings. You may recall she is the one that led Narcissus to the pond and showed him his reflection, and he dove in and drowned. I chose the title, because it seems to me that she's present in our country right now, just waiting to make her -- to carry out her divine mission.
By the subtitle, I really do mean it. This is not just hype to sell books -- “The Last Days of the American Republic.” I’m here concerned with a very real, concrete problem in political analysis, namely that the political system of the United States today, history tells us, is one of the most unstable combinations there is -- that is, domestic democracy and foreign empire -- that the choices are stark. A nation can be one or the other, a democracy or an imperialist, but it can't be both. If it sticks to imperialism, it will, like the old Roman Republic, on which so much of our system was modeled, like the old Roman Republic, it will lose its democracy to a domestic dictatorship.
I’ve spent some time in the book talking about an alternative, namely that of the British Empire after World War II, in which it made the decision, not perfectly executed by any manner of means, but nonetheless made the decision to give up its empire in order to keep its democracy. It became apparent to the British quite late in the game that they could keep the jewel in their crown, India, only at the expense of administrative massacres, of which they had carried them out often in India. In the wake of the war against Nazism, which had just ended, it became, I think, obvious to the British that in order to retain their empire, they would have to become a tyranny, and they, therefore, I believe, properly chose, admirably chose to give up their empire.
As I say, they didn't do it perfectly. There were tremendous atavistic fallbacks in the 1950s in the Anglo, French, Israeli attack on Egypt; in the repression of the Kikuyu -- savage repression, really -- in Kenya; and then, of course, the most obvious and weird atavism of them all, Tony Blair and his enthusiasm for renewed British imperialism in Iraq. But nonetheless, it seems to me that the history of Britain is clear that it gave up its empire in order to remain a democracy. I believe this is something we should be discussing very hard in the United States.
......