• úvod
  • témata
  • události
  • tržiště
  • diskuze
  • nástěnka
  • přihlásit
    registrace
    ztracené heslo?
    GORGworld conspiracy // 911 // new world order ... part 3 :: Love your local Illuminati :)
    GYD
    GYD --- ---
    ANGLAN: ja myslim, ze by se dala kopit i gumova maska na hlavu.
    ANGLAN
    ANGLAN --- ---
    JAXXE: good stuff.... ! Hele pro vsechny mam prosbu, jhraju si s myslenkou ze pujdu na maskarni za george bushe - tema je jit za nekho kym bychom neradi byli... proc to pisu? potrebuju sehnat nejake good ci hi red quality fotky ksichtu toho lotra.... nepovite ci nevite kde? at se v tom nemusim dlouho hrabat.. dikes a sorrac za OT
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    Několik ne nezajímavých faktů o volbách v USA
    Bob Rowe
    (více o autorovi=>>)
    9.12.2004

    Na internetu existuje velké množství článků, svědectví a dokumentů o (ne)regulérnosti posledních amerických voleb. Než bych překládal řadu z nich, rozhodl jsem se pro výcuc v kostce, jak to ve svém článku poměrně šikovně zpracoval Bob Rowe. Pozn. vydavatele.


    1.

    80 % hlasů bylo zpracováváno pouze dvěma firmami: Diebold a ES & S, z toho 30 % hlasů bylo zpracováno na strojích, které neprodukují žádnou tiskovou sestavu či audit.
    2.

    Viceprezidenti firem Diebold a ES & S jsou bratři.
    3.

    Žádná agentura na úrovni federální vlády nedohlíží na soukromé firmy vyrábějící hlasovací automaty.
    4.

    Nejvyšší šéf (CEO) ve firmě Diebold patří mezi hlavní organizátory a sponzory Bushovy kampaně a v roce 2003 napsal, že (cituji) "je odhodlán pomoci Bushovi k vítězství ve státě Ohio".
    5.

    Republikánský senátor Chuck Hagel, který se stal senátorem na základě hlasů zpracovaných volebními automaty firmy ES & S, vlastní 53 procent akcií této firmy.
    6.

    Tentýž člověk (Chuck Hagel) se dostal na zkrácený (konečný) Bushův seznam možných kandidátů na úřad viceprezidenta.
    7.

    Firma ES & S je největším výrobcem volebních automatů, její stroje zpracovávaly 60 % všech hlasů při posledních volbách.
    8.

    Volební automaty firmy Diebold neprodukují žádný audit. Jinými slovy neexistuje cesta jak ověřit, že to, co do stroje vstupuje, z něj také vystupuje.
    9.

    Stejná firma (Diebold) je rovněž výrobcem bankovních automatů, obchodních pokladen a automatů na jízdenky. Všechny tyto výrobky nemají problém produkovat tiskové sestavy o provedených transakcích.
    10.

    Diebold sídlí ve státě Ohio.
    11.

    Vývojem počítačových programů pro volby ve firmě Diebold bylo pověřeno pět lidí. Všichni jsou usvědčeni kriminálníci.
    12.

    Jeff Dean, viceprezident firmy Diebold byl usvědčen z 23 podvodných machinací a krádeží.
    13.

    Tentýž člověk (Jeff Dean) byl usvědčen z naprogramování zadních vrátek do software firmy a z toho, že se mu po dva roky dařilo toto zatajit před zákazníky.
    14.

    U voleb ve státě Ohio nebyl povolen žádný z mezinárodních pozorovatelů.
    15.

    Stát Kalifornie zakázal použití volebních automatů firmy Diebold na základě špatné pověsti o bezpečnosti těchto strojů.
    16.

    Bushův zákon Help America Vote Act z roku 2002 předpokládá, že příští hlasování bude stoprocentně prováděno na hlasovacích automatech, které neprodukují žádné tiskové sestavy.
    17.

    Všechny – nikoliv pouze některé – ohlášené chyby při hlasování, pokud si jich voliči stačili všimnout, byly ve prospěch G.W. Bushe.
    18.

    Matematikové spočítali, že pravděpodobnost, že všechny zjištěné a nahlášené chyby byly ve prospěch G.W.Bushe, je 1:250×106. To je statistický zázrak. Byl to zásah Boží? Nebo Diebold?

    Článek 20 Amazing Facts About Voting In The United States vyšel na serveru coastal.com. Článek jsem při překladu mírně upravil.

    http://www.zvedavec.org/clanky_1035.htm
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    South American leaders vow to create an EU-styled political union

    12/08/2004 10:08

    Regional leaders meet in Peru this week to set up the basis of an eventual political unification of the continent

    With the European experience in their minds, South American leaders meet this week in Cuzco, the millenarian capital city of the Inca's Empire in Peru, in an attempt to set the basis of the political unification of the continent and speed up the integration process of the two main trade blocs of the region. The bid id ambitious indeed, as officials and analysts believe the goal could only be accomplished in 15 years.

    http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/368/14691_brazil.html
    GORG
    GORG --- ---
    jo to je ta nejvetsi tragedie ... ta jejich valka dava totiz dokonaly smysl.
    ANGLAN
    ANGLAN --- ---
    "desi me, ze tihle typci v rukavicich nike, snowboardovyma brylema oakley, nejlepsimi zbranovymi systemy a krucifixem na krku by klidne osvobodili cely svet a mysleli by to uprimne... " - >> he he he he, ale jo bohuzel
    TERMIX
    TERMIX --- ---
    KERRAY: Sim, kam? To nize, onehda zde uvedene ftp me nejelo... :(
    KERRAY
    KERRAY --- ---
    btw douploadoval jsem Outfoxed, kdyby to nahodou jeste nekdo nevidel...
    PONKIE
    PONKIE --- ---
    "They can be so smart that they are actually very stupid."

    Tim se chlapec vystihl.
    PONKIE
    PONKIE --- ---
    To je SILENY!
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    ufff... tak to je silne kafe. nazorna ukazka brainwashingu 21.stoleti

    desi me, ze tihle typci v rukavicich nike, snowboardovyma brylema oakley, nejlepsimi zbranovymi systemy a krucifixem na krku by klidne osvobodili cely svet a mysleli by to uprimne...
    KERRAY
    KERRAY --- ---
    ADYZ --- --- 15.31:45 7.12.2004
    Je to sice delší, ale dejte si to ;-) Přišlo kamarádovi od vzdáleného příbuzného z USA. Začátek mailu se týkal rodiny a podobně (asi deset řádků), takže není podstatný, následující "úryvek" je rakce na to, že jim kámoš napsal, že viděl Fahrenheit 9/11 a že mu to přišlo celkem zajímavé:

    ...Our second son, Monte, is back from Iraq, but our third son, Tom, is now over there. For a while, he was at a base at Ramadi, but, now, he is at a base outside of Fallujah. He is a "contracting officer" and mostly in charge of supplies, so he stays very busy on the base. Since he is not in infantry, he does not have to go out into the Iraqi population. That pleases us just fine. He will be over there until next March or April.
    Right now, his wife, Diana, and little year old son, Logan, are here in Texas, with us and with her parents, visiting during the Christmas period. We all get e-mails from Tom almost every day. Since he is a supply officer, he has a laptop computer and can contact us, when he is not busy. Mostly, however, he is very busy.
    By the way, we sent a few photographs to Lenka, so you will need to ask her to show them to you. Maybe she has already done so.
    Now, to your other questions about my opinion about the war in Iraq, about some other politcal ideas. I will try to keep my answers short.
    First, I am mostly an INDEPENDENT, but I vote mostly Republican. Long ago, my gand-parents were Democrats and so were my parents. But, gradually, my parents and myself became mostly Republican. Here is the reasons. I believe in freedom and liberty, while the Democrats seem to believe in government control of people. And, I do not believe in abortion, in gay marriage, in socialism, therefore I can no longer vote Democrat. There are a few other reasons, but, the above explanation will do.
    I feel badly that you all, in Europe, are being exposed to Fahrenheit 9/11. It is full of lies and propaganda. It was designed to get Americans to vote against George Bush, but it did not work - Americans are good at seeing the truth in things, and Michael Moore is just a Democrat propagandist. When I think of him, I think of Paul Joseph Goebbels, the official propagandist of Nazi Germany during the 1930s and 1940s. Of course, Goebbels worked for a dictator and had complete control of all modes of information dissemination. If anyone had opposed Goebbels, he would have been killed. At least, In America, Moore had to compete against the truth, and the truth won.
    I only wish that Europeans were seeing the big picture about the wonder and goodness of American people. Please remember that Americans are descendants of immigrants from all over Europe, the British Isles, and, now, many parts of all nations of the world. When I read the names of people in America, they are Czechs, Poles, Germans, Brits, Scots, Irish, Swiss, on and on the list goes. Yet, many people from other parts of the world are starting to think that Americans are someone bad, someone to hate. That bothers me greatly, because it should not be happening, you all should not be influenced by propaganda.
    Next, we voted for President George Bush. He is an honest, straight-talking, good leader. When he says something, you can believe it. Of course, we are very conservative, and President Bush can be a little liberal to suit us, but that is politics, the art of compromise.
    Here is the big question - In these modern times, HOW DOES THE REST OF THE WORLD DEAL WITH ISLAMIC TERRORISTS THAT HATE THE WESTERN WORLD AND WANTS TO DESTROY IT? Not long ago, the people in the Middle East could have their little tribal wars and not affect the rest of us (us being Europe and America). They could hate us, but they could not act on their hatred.
    Now, with modern transportation, modern communication, modern technologies regarding bombs, chemicals and biological weapons, they can finally act on their hatred for all of us. The attack on the World Trade Centers on 9/11 is a perfect example of how they can be successful. If George Bush and America had not taken action in Afghanistan and Iraq, I am certain that there would have been more attacks by now. Even as it is, there were the attacks in Spain, and there have been other attacks that were stopped.
    It is very simple. When there is a bully, the best way to deal with that bully is to attack him and stop him from hurting other people around him. If he is only warned, he will laugh at the warnings and keep being a bully, until someone has the courage to fight him and stop him.
    As for Iraq, France, Germany, Russia, and China did not want to see Iraq attacked because officials in each of those countries were getting huge payoffs of money from Saddam Hussein in exchange for voting against sanctions against Iraq. I hope you all are getting all the truthful information about the "oil for food" scandal that has hurt the reputation of the United Nations and Kofi Annan. If you are not getting this information, what little I am telling you may confuse you.
    Once, when Lenka sent us a package, the gifts were wrapped in a Czech newspaper. Of course, I cannot speak or read Czech, but I was impressed with the newspaper- it seemed to be as good as any American newspaper. I can only trust that the news people in the Czech Republic, be they TV news, magazine news, or newspapers are free to tell the truth and have a burning desire to be truthful. There is no way for me to know whether or not that is happening.
    I know that, when I have read the history of the rise of the Nazi Party, the rise of the Japanese in the Pacific, all prior to World War II, there were plenty of times that action back then could have been taken that would have prevented that terrible war. And, there were things that could have been done to prevent the growth of the Communist Party and the USSR. So, in these modern times, the world must stop dictatorships from getting large and strong enough to hurt their people and threaten the rest of the world, finally ending up as another World War.
    Well, I tried to keep my answer short and simple, and it is difficult to do so. There are people everywhere that think about these things all the time, even write books and teach in universities about local, national, and world politics. Yet, they can make it too complicated. They can be so smart that they are actually very stupid. The main thing that people want throughout the world is freedom and liberty, to be free from being controlled by other men. No man has the right to control another man.
    And, the best book to read about all that is the Holy Bible, the greatest book about freedom there is - especially the New Testament and the words of Jesus Christ. I hope you and Lenka and your family have it in your home and have read it, read the words of Christ. My grand-mother, Vera Hnatkova, was a fine Christian woman and worked in her local Czech Church. And, true Christianity is about LOVE, not hate. It is difficult to practice true, unselfish love, but we must keep trying...


    // z Masakru
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    181,000 voters in U.S. elections were dead

    Tuesday 7th December, 2004
    Big News Network.com Monday 6th December, 2004

    More than 181,000 dead people were listed on the rolls in swing states for the Nov. 2 U.S. presidential election, the Chicago Tribune reported Sunday.

    The Tribune reviewed voter data from New Mexico, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Michigan and Minnesota. The newspaper found numerous errors in the integrity of voter rolls.

    In addition to the registered deceased, thousands of voters were registered to vote in two locations, which could have allowed them to cast more than one ballot. More than 90,000 other voters in Ohio cast ballots without a valid presidential choice. Either they decided not to choose a candidate, the machine failed to register their choice, or they mistakenly voted for more than one candidate.

    The FBI was investigating allegations that Republicans in Florida mounted a large-scale campaign to tamper with ballots.

    http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=1e23f25c27e3fa3e
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    If Noah Lived in the United States Today...

    And the Lord spoke to Noah and said, "In one year, I am going to make it rain and cover the whole earth with water until all flesh is destroyed. But I want you to save the righteous people and two of every kind of living thing on the earth. Therefore, I am commanding you to build an Ark." In a flash of lightening, God delivered the specifications for an Ark. In fear and trembling, Noah took the plans and agreed to build the Ark.

    "Remember" said the Lord, "You must complete the Ark and bring everything aboard in one year."

    Exactly one year later, fierce storm clouds covered the earth and all the seas of the earth went into a tumult. The Lord saw that Noah was sitting in his front yard weeping.

    "Noah," He shouted. "Where is the Ark?"

    "Lord, please forgive me!", cried Noah. "I did my best, but there were big problems. First, I had to get a permit for construction and your plans did not meet the codes. I had to hire an engineering firm and redraw the plans.

    Then I got into a fight with OSHA over whether or not the Ark needed a Fire sprinkler system and floatation devices.

    Then my neighbor objected, claiming I was violating zoning ordinances by building the Ark in my front yard, so I had to get a variance from the city planning commission.

    Then I had problems getting enough wood for the Ark, because there was a ban on cutting trees to protect the Spotted Owl. I finally convinced the U.S. Forest Service that I needed the wood to save the owls. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service won't let me catch any owls. So, no owls. The carpenters formed a union and went out on strike. I had to negotiate a settlement with the National Labor Relations Board before anyone would pick up a saw or a hammer. Now I have 16 carpenters on the Ark, but still no owls.

    When I started rounding up the other animals, I got sued by an animal rights group. They objected to me only taking two of each kind aboard. Just when I got the suit dismissed, the EPA notified me that I could not complete the Ark without filing an environmental impact statement on your proposed flood. They didn't take very kindly to the idea that they had no jurisdiction over the conduct of the Creator of the universe.

    Then the Army Engineers demanded a map of the proposed new flood plain. I sent them a globe.

    Right now, I am trying to resolve a complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that I am practicing discrimination by not taking godless, unbelieving people aboard.

    The IRS has seized my assets, claiming that I'm building the Ark in preparation to flee the country to avoid paying taxes.

    I just got a notice from the state that I owe them some kind of user tax and failed to register the Ark as a "recreational water craft."

    Finally, the ACLU got the courts to issue an injunction against further construction of the Ark, saying that since God is flooding the earth, it is a religious event and therefore, unconstitutional.

    I really don't think I can finish the Ark for another five or six years." Noah wailed.

    The sky began to clear, the sun began to shine and the seas began to calm. A rainbow arched across the sky. Noah looked up hopefully. "You mean You are not going to destroy the earth Lord?"

    "No," said the Lord sadly. "I don't have to. The government already has."

    http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol3/noah.shtml
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    a tady cesky...

    Policejní stát ve městě Fallúdža?

    Obyvatelé města Fallúdža, navracející se domů, zřejmě zjistí, že nová tamější americká opatření připomínají policejní stát a nikoliv slibovanou demokracii, píše list Boston Globe. Všichni navracející se Fallúdžané totiž budou muset nejprve povinně projít tzv. "středisky pro zpracování občanů" na okraji města. Američané tam zaznamenají do své databáze totožnost všech Fallúdžanů, včetně záznamu jejich DNA a scanů jejich rohovky. Obyvatelé města Fallúdža také dostanou visačky se svou domácí adresou, které budou muset neustále nosit. Ve městě budou zakázány automobily, aby se zabránilo sebevražedným atentátům, a obyvatelé budou po něm dopravováni jen autobusy.

    Američané čelí problémům, jak vpustit do města všech 300 000 jeho obyvatel před lednovými volbami. Podle jednoho návrhu se připravuje, že všichni Fallúdžané mužského pohlaví budou nuceni pracovat, za úplatu, v jednotkách, připomínající vojenské prapory, a to ve stavebnictví, ve vodárenství či v rotách odstraňujících rumiště.

    "Musíte jim říci: 'Toto jsou předpisy' a vynucovat je tvrdě a spravedlivě. Z toho se šíří stabilita," řekl plukovník Dave Bellon, výzvědný pracovník z jednoho amerického námořního pluku. "Musíme se chovat jako benevolentní, ale vládnoucí kmen. Nikdy nás nebudou mít rádi, " zdůraznil a podtrhl tak varování jiných amerických velitelů, kteří poukázali na to, že naděje, že Fallúdžané, až se vrátí do svých vybombardovaných domovů a do ulic, pokrytých troskami, Američany vřele přivítají, jsou liché. "Cílem je," řekl Bellon, "vzájemný respekt."

    "Když tady byli povstalci, měl jsem pocit bezpečí," říká Ammar Ahmed, 19, student biologie. "Alespoň jsem mohl volně chodit po městě, což teď nemohu."

    Američtí velitelé a iráčtí představitelé vyhlásili své rozhodnutí proměnit Fallúdžu ve "vzorné město", kde se jim podaří udržet bezpečnost lépe než jinde. K tomu chtějí použít násilných opatření podle stanného práva, které minulý měsíc vyhlásil premiér Iyad Allawi.

    "S nápady na nucenou znovuvýstavbu města a o identifikačních visačkách pro občany přišla irácká prozatímní vláda," řekl generál Richard Natonski. Někteří američtí vojáci jsou skeptičtí ohledně toho, že by obyvatelé Fallúdže byli ochotni nechat se nutit k veřejným pracím, jiní argumentují, že takovou taktiku užívaly Spojené státy v Německu po druhé světová válce a že "vláda pevné ruky má něco do sebe".

    http://blisty.cz/2004/12/7/art20969.html
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    Returning Fallujans will face clampdown

    By Anne Barnard, Globe Staff | December 5, 2004

    ...

    FALLUJAH, Iraq -- The US military is drawing up plans to keep insurgents from regaining control of this battle-scarred city, but returning residents may find that the measures make Fallujah look more like a police state than the democracy they have been promised.

    Under the plans, troops would funnel Fallujans to so-called citizen processing centers on the outskirts of the city to compile a database of their identities through DNA testing and retina scans. Residents would receive badges displaying their home addresses that they must wear at all times. Buses would ferry them into the city, where cars, the deadliest tool of suicide bombers, would be banned.


    ...

    US commanders and Iraqi leaders have declared their intention to make Fallujah a "model city," where they can maintain the security that has eluded them elsewhere. They also want to avoid a repeat -- on a smaller scale -- of what happened after the invasion of Iraq, when a quick US victory gave way to a disorganized reconstruction program thwarted by insurgent violence and intimidation.

    ...

    http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/12/05/returning_fallujans_will_face_clampdown/
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    Opposition was to be smeared with terror attack, says official

    By Askold Krushelnycky in Kiev

    06 December 2004

    Ukraine's embattled government is ready to stage faked terrorist attacks to destabilise the country and discredit the opposition ahead of a rerun of the presidential vote, a senior government source has told The Independent.

    The official, who works for the government of the Moscow-backed candidate and current Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, said: "One of the plans is to blow up a pipeline and blame it on opposition supporters. Ukraine is the key transit country for Russian gas supplies to the West."

    Mr Yanukovych's backers fear the prospect of their candidate losing to Viktor Yushchenko and are ready to plunge the country into economic chaos, the source revealed. "They are planning to use criminals - plain bandits - that they have a hold over." The source said that a senior member of the government had been tasked with overseeing terrorist acts.

    ...

    The government source told The Independent that Mr Putin said, at a meeting with Mr Kuchma in Moscow last Thursday, that Russia will back the Ukrainian government whatever measures it takes, including force, in order to stop Mr Yushchenko winning.

    ...

    http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=590117
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    Greg Bendon has a new job title: Big Brother. All day, every day.

    He follows his people everywhere, recording each step they take, timing how long they linger in places they’re not supposed to be.

    “We’re tracking you every single minute. Big Brother is watching you,” said Bendon, who works for ComCor Inc., a nonprofit group that offers programs to rehabilitate criminals.

    ComCor recently introduced technology that allows it to peer via satellite into a criminal’s life.

    Authorities looking to deal with jail overcrowding hope the Global Positioning System satellite technology — considered more sophisticated than traditional radio frequency monitoring — will convince judges it’s a reliable way to control people and free up jail beds.

    “Our goal is to get judges to experiment with it, for the lack of a better word,” said Henry Sontheimer, an El Paso County criminal justice planner.

    Judges sentence criminals to electronic monitoring, but not often.

    http://www.gazette.com/display.php?sid=1390768
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    In sworn affidavit, programmer says he developed vote-rigging prototype for Florida congressman; Congressman’s office silent

    http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=477
    PONKIE
    PONKIE --- ---
    Vyslo pred volbami v Newsweeku. Mozna by vas mohlo zajimat, jak to vidi Kissinger do budoucna.

    America's Assignment
    Henry A Kissinger. Newsweek. New York: Nov 8, 2004. Vol. 144, Iss. 19; p. 32

    What will we face in the next four years? The former secretary of State on the global challenges ahead.

    AS THESE LINES are being written, the election process is still in full swing. But this week, barring another deadlocked outcome, the campaign that has mesmerized America will be over. What will remain are the challenges that gave rise to this occasionally frenzied battle and the responsibility of dealing with them. No president has faced an agenda of comparable scope. This is not hyperbole; it is the hand history has dealt this generation. Never before has it been necessary to conduct a war with neither front lines nor geographic definition and, at the same time, to rebuild fundamental principles of world order to replace the traditional ones which went up in the smoke of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

    The newly elected president's task is perhaps most analogous to that inherited by President Truman at the end of the Second World War. In 1945, the Soviet Union was emerging as a threat to the global equilibrium, while the war had left a vacuum in Central Europe. But the Soviet challenge was concrete and geographically definable. Today's principal threats are abstract and mobile. Terror has no fixed address; it has attacked from Bali to Singapore, Riyadh, Istanbul, Moscow, Madrid, Tunis, New York and Washington. In the 1940s, the solution to the crisis was straightforward, albeit difficult: to construct a defensive line in the center of Europe and an economic program to close the gap between public expectation and the reality of shortages that threatened domestic stability.

    The contemporary security challenge arises from two unprecedented sources: terror caused by acts until recently considered a matter for internal police forces rather than international policy, and scientific advances and proliferation that allow the survival of countries to be threatened by developments entirely within another state's territory. Truman could take the legitimacy of the international system for granted; the Atlantic alliance rallied America's West European allies from the Second World War. The newly elected president will have to lead an effort to define and then maintain an international system that reflects the new, revolutionary circumstances.

    I supported President Bush during the campaign and hope for his success. But whatever the outcome, the United States cannot tackle this agenda except in the context of a commitment by all sides to healing. All concerned with the future of the country must find ways to cooperate so that the world will again see Americans working toward a common destiny both at home and in the community of nations. It is to such an effort that this article seeks to make a contribution.

    Next Steps in Iraq

    NO ISSUE REQUIRES BIPARTIsanship more urgently than the next phase of Iraq policy. If President Bush prevails, it is important that America's adversaries not confuse the passion of an election period with lack of unity regarding ultimate goals. If Senator Kerry wins, there is an overwhelming need for immediate cooperation between the incoming and the outgoing administration, lest the rhetoric describing the war as unnecessary at the wrong place, coupled with the hiatus imposed by the months of transition, undermine the confidence of the Iraqi authorities and cause a collapse before the new team can even begin to chart a course.

    The seeming agreement on at least immediate objectives between the candidates was reflected in their endorsement of the 9/11 Commission Report, which pointed out that terrorism is a method, not a policy. The basic adversary is the radical, fundamentalist militant fringe of Islam, which aims to overthrow both moderate Islamic societies and all others it perceives as standing in the way of restoring an Islamic caliphate. For that reason, many societies that questioned America's intervention nevertheless have a stake in a successful outcome. If a radical government emerges in Baghdad-because the United States is defeated or tires of solitary exertions, even more if Iraq falls into terrorist chaos-the entire Islamic world will find itself in turmoil. Moderate governments will topple or struggle for their existence; countries with substantial Islamic minorities, such as India, Russia and the Philippines, will witness a mounting challenge. Terrorism will spread across Europe. The challenges to America will multiply.

    Today the U.S. acts as the trustee of global stability, while domestic obstacles prevent the admission-and perhaps even the recognition-of these realities in many countries. But such a one-sided arrangement cannot continue much longer. Other nations should find it in their interest to participate at least in the tasks of political and economic reconstruction. There is no shortcut around the next steps: the restoration of security in Iraq, especially in areas that have become terrorist sanctuaries, is imperative. No guerrilla war can be won if sanctuaries for insurgents are tolerated.

    Having witnessed the challenges of creating local security forces in Indochina, I would warn against approaching the security effort in too mechanical a manner. In Vietnam, it took far longer to make units ready for combat than simply fulfilling the requirements of a training manual. The effectiveness of Iraqi forces will depend not only on their military training but on the degree to which the emerging Iraqi institutions gain domestic legitimacy. Units without political allegiance are generally least reliable when most needed.

    The first national elections scheduled for the end of January are the next step. They should he viewed not as a culmination but as the first and perhaps least complicated achievement in the quest for Iraqi self-government. Democracy in the West evolved over centuries. It required first a church independent of the state; then the Reformation, which imposed pluralism of religion; the Enlightenment, which asserted the autonomy of reason from both church and state; the Age of Discovery, which broadened horizons; and finally capitalism, with its emphasis on competition and the market. None of these conditions exists in the Islamic world. Instead there is a merging of religion and politics inimical to pluralism. A genuine democratic government has come about only in Turkey, paradoxically through the imposition of democratic forms by an autocratic leader. The emergence of democratic institutions and of the arrangements which hold them together cannot be engineered as an act of will; it requires patience and modesty.

    It is particularly important to understand the obstacles to democracy in a multiethnic and multireligion society such as Iraq's. In the West, democracy evolved in homogeneous societies. There was no institutional impediment to the minority's becoming a majority. Electoral defeat was considered a temporary setback that could be reversed. But in societies with distinct ethnic or political divisions, minority status often means permanent discrimination and the constant risk of political extinction.

    This is a particularly acute issue in Iraq. The country is composed of three major groups: Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis, with the Shiites representing about 60 percent of the population and the other two groups about 20 percent each. For 500 years, the Sunnis have dominated by military force and, during Saddam's rule, with extraordinary brutality. Thus national elections, based on majority rule, imply a radical upheaval in the relative power and status of the three communities. The insurgency in the Sunni region is not only a national struggle against America; it is a means to restore political dominance. By the same token, the political process means little for the Kurds if it does not ensure a large measure of autonomy. The Shiites tolerate the U.S. presence-sometimes ambivalently-to achieve the goal of reversing the historic pattern of Sunni rule and as a first step to Shiite dominance. To what extent they will continue to support our role as the transfer of power progresses remains to be seen.

    The January elections in Iraq, therefore, must be regarded as the beginning of an extended contest among the various groups, involving the constant risk of civil war, or of a national struggle against the U.S., or both. All factions maintain militias for precisely such eventualities. It will be necessary to augment the national electoral process with a significant element of federalism and to establish clear-cut constitutional protections for those who might find themselves in the permanent minority. Democracy must not be seen as a suicide pact by the Sunnis and the Kurds. Federalist structures and the assurance that free speech, freedom of conscience, and due process of law are constitutionally beyond the reach of any majority might provide some guarantee for the concerns of the various groups and a safety net if national reconciliation proves impossible.

    In the potential cauldron after the January elections, some degree of internationalization is the only realistic path toward stability inside Iraq and sustained domestic support in America. The survival of the political process depends in the first instance on security-for which the United States retains the major responsibility-but ultimately on international acceptance to enable the Iraqi government to be perceived as representing indigenous aspirations.

    During the political campaign there has been much talk of beginning this process with an effort to induce our European allies to increase their military participation and to lure recalcitrant allies into joining the security effort. Such a course cannot succeed in a time frame relevant to the immediate necessities. Germany and France-the two most difficult allies on Iraq-will not reverse their stand in sending troops to Iraq at the beginning of a process of reconciliation. (The German Foreign Minister has said so explicitly.) And countries that have sent troops have enough domestic difficulties maintaining their participation and little, if any, scope for increasing it.

    Meaningful internationalization requires a focus other than security and the participation of countries other than-or in addition to-NATO. After the January elections, an international contact group, under U.N. auspices, to advise on Iraq's political evolution is therefore desirable. Logical members would be countries that have experience with militant Islam and much to lose by the radicalization of Iraq-countries such as India, Turkey, Russia, Algeria, in addition to the United States and Britain. This is not an abdication to consensus. The United States, by virtue of its military presence and financial role, would retain the leading position. The issue of military contribution by other nations, including NATO, can be raised again at a later stage in a more favorable political environment as a means to protect the governmental process.

    Pre-emption

    IN ITS FIRST MONTHS IN OFFICE, THE BUSH ADMINISTRAtion challenged conventional wisdom when it proclaimed the concept of pre-emption as if it were an American invention. In fact, pre-emption is inherent in the structure of the new international order, regardless of who serves in the White House. The international system of the 20th century was established by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Seeking to avoid a repetition of the Thirty Years' War, during which nearly 30 percent of the population of Central Europe was killed in a conflict nominally over religious belief, the rulers based the new system on the principle of sovereignty within state borders and noninterference across them. Threats to international order were defined as movements of military units across established frontiers. Because weapons were relatively small and technology moved slowly, national security could generally be protected by awaiting the actual aggression.

    September 11 marked the end of that option. Threats, it taught, were no longer identical with state action; they could be organized by private groups operating from the territory of sovereign states for goals transcending the purposes of the host countries. Cold War strategies ceased to apply, since deterrence cannot work against an adversary with no territory to defend; and diplomacy does not work when the adversary rejects any limitation of objective and seeks the overthrow of societies. In the Westphalian system, the balance of power could generally be upset only by conquest. In the world of privatized terror and proliferating weapons of mass destruction, the balance can be upset and survival threatened by developments entirely within the borders of a sovereign state.

    Inevitably the concept of pre-emption leads to a clash between new realities and traditional notions of order. Countries used to established patterns find it difficult to accept the new necessities, and all nations will seek some rules of conduct that do not leave decisions on pre-emption to the unilateral, unconstrained determination of a single state. When implemented by a power with the overwhelming military preponderance of the United States, the doctrine prompts claims of hegemony by some on the American side and increasing resistance by others, particularly members of traditional alliances.

    The new president will want to make a distinction between power and the claims made on its behalf No nation, no matter how powerful, can organize the international system by itself; over an historical period it is beyond the psychological and political capacity of even the most dominant state. The goal of U.S. foreign policy must be to turn dominant power into shared responsibility-to conduct policy, as the Australian scholar Coral Bell has written, as if the international order were composed of many centers of power, even while we are aware of our strategic pre-eminence. It implies the need for a style of consultation less focused on imposing immediate policy prescriptions than achieving a common definition of long-range purposes.

    It is not in America's interest to encourage every state to define pre-emption in purely national terms. The response to 9/11 was imposed by requirements of an emergency. The newly elected president could contribute greatly to a new global order by indicating a willingness to discuss international principles of pre-emption-even while reserving the right to defend national security alone as a last resort.

    Nuclear Proliferation

    WHILE MILITANT ISLAM IS THE MOST immediate and obvious challenge to international order, nuclear proliferation is the most long-range and insidious threat to global survival. Heretofore nuclear weapons have spread relatively slowly and remained in the possession of countries with everything to lose and nothing to gain from assaulting the international order. But the international system is now confronted by the imminent spread of nuclear weapons into the hands of two countries with a worrisome agenda: the odd, isolated regime in North Korea, which is responsible for multiple assassinations and kidnappings and meets every definition of a rogue regime; and Iran, whose current regime started by holding American diplomats as hostages and has since supported a variety of terrorist groups in the Middle East and continues to declare America its principal enemy.

    The possession of nuclear weapons by these countries would constitute a momentous step towards stripping the international order of the remaining restraints of the Westphalian system. Deterrence will lose its traditional meaning even with respect to state-to-state relations. With such a variety of nuclear powers, it will no longer be clear who is responsible for deterring whom and by what means. Second-order issues can escalate into nuclear conflict. The possibilities of miscalculation grow. Even if the new nuclear countries do not use their weapons, they can become a shield behind which to step up terrorist challenges. Finally, the experience with the so-called "private" distribution of Pakistan's nuclear technology to other countries shows that this may be the last moment to keep proliferation from spinning out of control. North Korea is so short of foreign exchange that its diplomats often revert to counterfeit currency; it might find the temptation to trade nuclear material for foreign exchange irresistible. In Iran, extremist elements have frequently demonstrated their ability to find specious Islamic justification for unconscionable acts in support of terrorism.

    The international community has been torn between premonition of nuclear catastrophe and the escapism of treating warnings about proliferation as an example of American bellicosity. In some quarters on both sides of the Atlantic, the issue is presented as a case for testing whether pressure or diplomacy should serve as a principal tool. There is a debate as well about appropriate mechanisms for diplomacy. With respect to the North Korean nuclear program, the issue is whether negotiations should be conducted bilaterally between the United States and North Korea or in the existing six-party forum in Beijing, comprised of North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States.

    If progress is to be made, the newly elected president will have to cut through these disputes to impose a unified policy. In practice, the distinction between diplomacy and pressure is academic since diplomacy is never abstract; it inevitably involves an amalgam of both. The challenge is to determine the proper mix.

    Invariably, proliferating countries claim that they are seeking merely to participate in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy or to enhance electricity production or both. Countries determined to prevent proliferation are therefore tempted to provide incentives in the form of guaranteed alternative sources of energy or of nuclear fuel for power plants. Yet this approach generally fails, because the ultimate objectives of the proliferating country are political and strategic, not economic. Iran, an oil-producing country, has no economic need for nuclear power plants. What it seeks, as does North Korea, is a shield behind which it can conduct the revolutionary aspects of its foreign policy while reducing the risk of intervention by great powers.

    A policy of offering material incentives in return for denuclearization is likely to fail, however appealing it may be in the abstract. For the incentives in one way or another increase the dependence of the proliferating country on the states against which the proliferation is really directed. Progress is unlikely unless it involves, at the least, the implication of pressure and a goal that addresses the security concerns of all interested parties. Multilateral talks, including the proliferating country, are essential.

    With respect to North Korea, each of the parties in the six-party talks has special political and strategic objectives in the back of its mind: China, concern about nuclear weapons in all of Korea and the deployment of forces in North Korea in case of unification; Japan, its position as a non-nuclear countiy in an increasingly nuclear environment; South Korea, its aspirations to unification and the balance it seeks between China and the United States. Thus the technicalities of nonproliferation pale compared with the objective of elaborating a security system for Northeast Asia. A similar analysis could be made in the case of Iran, for which a forum does not yet exist.

    Care must also be taken lest the fact of dialogue becomes its only substance, enhancing the prestige of the proliferating country without ensuring its cooperation. In any event, the solution cannot be left to bilateral U.S. talks with the proliferators. The insistence on U.S.-North Korea bilateralism would leave America as the sole enforcer of any agreement at the borders of China. And it would invite Pyongyang to use the new agreement for future blackmail-the pattern it followed after the bilateral agreement of 1994. The same applies in a different context to relations with Iran.

    All of this is an academic exercise, meanwhile, if die concerned nations do not recognize that time is short, that the stately process of arms control negotiations is on the verge of being overwhelmed by events. To impart a sense of urgency, an answer must he found to these four questions: How much time do we actually have before the process of proliferation in North Korea and Iran has become irreversible? What incentives and assurances are we prepared to offer? What pressures are we prepared to undertake if incentives do not work? And how do we prevent negotiation and implementation from becoming a means to legitimize proliferation rather than avert it?

    Reality therefore imposes a time limit on these negotiations-or else the newly elected president is likely to leave a fearsome legacy by the end of his term. The all-consuming queries then will be: How does a society react to a nuclear explosion of undetermined origin? How should the world react to a nuclear war between emerging nuclear countries or the use of nuclear weapons by emerging nuclear countries against non-nuclear adversaries? At what point do the existing nuclear powers decide that a world of unrestrained nuclear proliferation is too dangerous and that they must impose nonproliferation for the survival of humanity?

    The Long Challenge

    FOR ALL THEIR IMPORTANCE, THE REGIONAL crises-Iraq, North Korea-are dwarfed by the fundamental transfer of power within the international system. Historians agree that the emergence of a unified Germany over a century ago unbalanced the European system by introducing a state stronger than each of its neighbors. Disraeli called the event of greater significance than the French Revolution, because he sensed that the emerging structure would either imply German hegemony or that equilibrium could be restored only by an increasingly rigid alliance system depriving diplomacy of maneuvering room.

    In our age, the rise of China as a potential superpower is of even greater historical significance, marking as it does a shift in the center of gravity of world affairs from the Atlantic to the Pacific. To be sure, China is unlikely to rely on military power as its principal instrument to achieve international status. For one thing, China's leaders are (or at least have been) more careful, more deliberate, more prone to accumulate advantages by nuance than the impetuous German leaders after Bismarck's retirement. More importantly, with modern technology war between major powers is an absolutely last resort, not a political option. America should maintain its traditional opposition to hegemonial aspirations over Asia. But the long-term relationship with China should not be driven by expectations of a strategic showdown. China will not conduct as imprudent a policy as the Soviet Union, which threatened all its neighbors simultaneously and challenged the United States to a contest of survival. The special case of Taiwan aside, it will seek influence commensurate with its growth by diplomatic and political means.

    An interesting recent article compared the difference in the diplomatic style of China and the United States to their intellectual games-the West's chess and Chinese neiji, better known by the Japanese name of go. Chess has only two outcomes: draw and checkmate. The objective of the game is absolute advantage-that is to say, its outcome is total victory or defeat-and the battle is conducted head-on, in the center of the board. The aim of go is relative advantage; the game is played all over the board, and the objective is to increase one's options and reduce those of the adversary. The goal is less victory than persistent strategic progress.

    No one can predict what judgment leaders will make decades from now. But leaders in both Beijing and Washington have a responsibility to help shape the judgments of emerging generations. With respect to China, the priority should be to keep the nationalism that is replacing Communism from taking a confrontational turn. In America, it is to transcend the temptation to view history through the prism of the most recent experience rather than of the long-range view.

    China and the United States require a permanent strategic dialogue at a high level seeking a common definition of long-range purposes-to make them compatible where possible, and to reduce the dangers of confrontation when that effort fails. They need to keep the Taiwan issue from undermining the relationship while remembering the importance of solving it by peaceful means. In Sino-American relations, the future of Korea will play an increasingly prominent role. It is not simply a non-proliferation issue but a challenge for a security system for all of Northeast Asia.

    China's renaissance, the rapid growth in India and the globalization in every corner of the world, beneficent as these conditions are for individuals, at the same time bring about massive issues of policy that can be postponed only at peril to the world economy. The equable management of access to energy and raw materials is beyond the capacity of the international system as presently constituted. If nothing is done, there is the real risk of a return to the rivalries of the colonial era-the contest over the direction of pipelines replacing the contest over territory-and a commodity pricing crisis that could drive the world into general recession. These issues must be addressed with great urgency by the newly elected president-in concert with directly affected trading and financial partners.

    All this will bring us back to Atlantic relations. The political campaign has cast Atlantic disagreements in terms of American short-term tactical errors. This is a misreading of reality. Tact has not always distinguished every U.S. pronouncement. But the problem goes deeper than personalities. The impasse is partly due to the fact that the generation that formed the Atlantic relationship has passed from the scene. In the United States, the new leadership group is preoccupied with the challenge of radical Islam; our European allies cither do not share America's assessment of that threat or, to the extent that they do, believe themselves capable of dealing with it outside the Atlantic framework. In the United States, the political center of gravity has shifted to parts of the country whose representatives have fewer personal connections with Europe and less experience with its internal challenges than their predecessors who created the postwar structure.

    Across the Atlantic, leaders have been concentrating on transferring national sovereignty to new European institutions. This involves a host of technicalities and legal issues which are both arcane and elusive for most Americans. More fundamentally, the United States conducts its policies as the sovereign states of Europe did in the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. The European nations having invented the concept of the nation-state are now in the process of seeking to abandon their sovereignty to a European Union not yet possessing the traditional attributes of the state. They find themselves in a halfway house between their history and a future still in the process of evolving.

    All this has generated a witches' brew of mutual misunderstandings. In America, critics describe European attitudes as faint-hearted, querulous and, on occasion, duplicitous. In Europe the media (and too many political figures) revel in descriptions of America's racial tension, the death penalty, differences over the environment and mistreatment of prisoners as if aberrations reflected the ultimate meaning of the United States. Shifting their priority from the Atlantic alliance to the U.N. Security Council, Europeans feel no special obligation to support U.S. policy, on occasion actively opposing it.

    These conditions cannot be removed by consultation on any one individual issue, and require a fundamental change of attitude on both sides of the Atlantic. The nations bordering the North Atlantic need to ask themselves the fundamental question that has always underpinned the alliance-that is, what will the allies do for the relationship beyond the international consensus reflected at the United Nations? Much of European debate today implies that the answer is "very little." To subject common military action to prior approval of the Security Council is incompatible with the very concept of alliance, which implies a special set of obligations. It spells the ultimate disintegration of a world order with the Atlantic partnership as its centerpiece. The Atlantic relationship, to be meaningful, needs to have a special character. The United States and Europe should be prepared to do things for each other in the sphere beyond the immediate dictates of national interest and without insisting on universal consensus.

    A deepening of the dialogue between the two sides of the Atlantic is imperative. In a world of jihad, transformation of the balance of power, demographic change, mass migration and economic globalization, the ultimate challenge to the alliance will be the quest for some common purpose. The dialogue over Iraq and Iran described earlier should be supplemented by a new approach to the Palestine-Israeli problem. For decades the diplomatic stale-mate has been deepened because Europe was perceived to champion the Palestinian claims and America the goals of Israel. But new circumstances permit envisaging how the two positions can be brought closer. Israel has implied that settlements beyond its new security fence are negotiable; the fence is already being brought into a relationship to the 1967 frontiers and some compensatory territory from present-day Israel has been discussed in Camp David and Tabba. At the same time, a few moderate Arab leaders have called for new initiatives. An effort to develop a European-U.S. position as part of a reinvigorated peace process might encourage reluctant parties to break the deadlock. In this process, the Atlantic alliance could rediscover its common purpose.

    The debate between unilateralism and multilateralism must be transcended with this perspective in mind. Unilateralism for its own sake is self-defeating. But so is abstract multilateralism. The former absorbs purpose into a sense of special national mission; the latter waters down purpose in a quest for a formal consensus. The challenge for America is to reconcile consultation with vast power. The question for Europe is whether it views Atlantic relations as a partnership or as part of an international system of multipolarity very similar to pre-World War I Europe, in which major power centers engaged in shifting coalitions to maximize their advantage from case to case. That system broke down in the early 20th century; its 21st-century version is likely to be even less successful.

    Opportunity for world order presents itself to each generation disguised as a set of problems. The dilemma of our age was perhaps best summed up by the philosopher Immanuel Kant over two hundred years ago. In his essay "Perpetual Peace," he wrote that the world was destined for perpetual peace. It would come about either by human foresight or by a series of catastrophes that leave no other choice. Which it will be is the ultimate question the newly elected president will have to face.
    OMRI
    OMRI --- ---
    je to skoda..

    I guess if it was true there would be now war between Canada a usa
    Kliknutím sem můžete změnit nastavení reklam