| Friday,
November 10. 2006
Subject: Another plan for Iraq
Is this inspired genius or raving lunacy?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ24Ak01.html
CP, Connecticut
As I have repeatedly said, we must first
answer the question: are we a republic primarily concerned with our own
affairs and defending our own borders, minding our own business and avoiding
both entangling alliances and meddling in the territorial disputes of
Europe, Asia, and the Middle East; or are we a world power with imperial
interests?
This is not a trivial question. Republics
cannot BE world powers, for the simple reason that republics are not capable
of long term policies without victories and successes. We cannot sustain a
trooper a day meatgrinder for a decade; much less thirty casualties a week,
even though that is far fewer than we routinely lose to traffic. Yet that
may well be the cost of a long term commitment overseas.
Our intervention in Iraq was not well
done, but one reason it was not well done was domestic politics: the
President could not simply say "It is in our interest to send in a punitive
expedition, grab the oil, and destabilize that regime." Whether or not
anyone believed it -- my friend Greg Cochran insists I am a naive fool for
thinking anyone did -- the invasion was cloaked in the language of
Jacobinism, and we went in and acted as if we believed in the Jacobin
ideals. We did that because the very liberal elements in the nation,
including those in the press, insisted that we must have more noble motives
(or else it was all a criminal conspiracy). This nation doesn't react well
to that kind of internal pressure. Republics need national unity to be able
to pursue wars; and in fact, most republics are not comfortable with small
wars, limited wars, wars of expediency: Republics expect and react best to
WARRE. Over there. Make the world safe for democracy. Jacobinism can
sometimes substitute: Jacobinism is noble, and fighting to implant democracy
and spread freedom may bring national unity. Of course Jacobinism as a
public goal makes it very difficult to pursue realistic foreign goals.
It is my belief that if we wish to become
a world power with imperial interests we will inevitably be transformed into
the kind of nation that can BE a world power with imperial interests. One of
those transformations is willingness to put up with a great deal of failure
without turning to criminalization of those failures. The recent muttering
about prosecuting Rumsfeld comes to mind. Think about the consequences of
those muttering, and what may come of it.
Now I note that a female general has
decided to go to Germany to testify in a criminal charge against the
Secretary of Defense. Think on the consequences of such things.
Enough on topical matters: my point is
that we need to think carefully about what should be our role in the world.
And we must decide fairly overwhelmingly: competent empires cannot spend a
great deal of time catering to the Old Republic and its ideals. Cicero had
no place in Caesar's new world order even though Caesar himself wished
mightily that there would be. Mark Anthony and Octavian were made of sterner
stuff.
If we decide that we are a world power
with imperial interests, and we are willing to undergo the domestic
transformations that will come from that, then
this essay
shows the kind of thinking we must indulge in; and this is a very important
essay. He is not an inspired genius, he is merely a realist with a sense of
history. He may be in error, but he is not in error in his fundamental ways
of thinking.
Of course the fact that he says what I
said about going into Iraq and what Israel ought to have done in the Lebanon
may color my thinking...
=============
Subject: A Draft for Cops and 'Are
Cops Constitutional'
Jerry, Further to the letter last week contemplating
the attitude of cops versus civilians, and proposing what amounts to a draft
for service as police, I thought that the linked article by Roger Roots "Are
Cops Constitutional" would be of interest.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
It explores the Constitutional history of public
police and the power of arrest in light of the Fourth Amendment. (A hat tip
to the Volokh Conspiracy for the pointer ..about 2 years ago.)
Geoff Newbury
I have not had time to read the essay you
point to, but I am not sure I have a lot to learn. I know something of the
history of law and law enforcement in the United States. There was never any
constitutional question about the Fourth Amendment applying to the States.
It didn't. There was a legal case much later when a US Marshal bodyguarding
a judge shot a would-be assassin. Did Federal officers have any such power.
I did open the essay but when I found
The Constitution contains no explicit provisions for criminal law
enforcement.11 Nor did the constitutions of any of the several
states contain such provisions at the time of the Founding.
I saw no point in continuing. It may come as a surprise to the writer of
that essay, but there were sheriffs in England and sheriffs in the Colonies.
It is true enough that "private prosecution" was fairly prevalent; but
that's true even for England until fairly recent times. Much prosecution of
minor crime (as opposed to those prosecuted by indictment of a Grand Jury)
was done by the constable as complainant. It was that way in many of the
states until fairly recently. Think about the phrase "press charges".
These are matters for the
states.
The Federal Government has criminalized a
very great many activities that ought not be, and I would certainly support
a constitutional amendment that required Federal authorities to obtain the
assistance and cooperation of the local sheriff before conducting any raids
or making arrests other than at the borders (with a mechanism for going to
the State Attorney General if the local sheriff refused cooperation);
but I fear the thrust of this essay is to attempt to prove too much.
It is unlikely that we will ever have a
return to small, effective, and cheap self government; but it is well to
keep in mind that what man has done, man can aspire to.
===============
On Rumsfeld:
Dear Jerry:
I have to respectfully take issue with the idea that
Rumsfeld built the current U.S. Army. He's mostly responsible for its ruin,
along with the rest of his gang of incompetent wishful thinkers. Our Army
has rebuilt itself about once a decade since World War II. It is always
thinking two or three decades into the future and always looking not just
for new technology, but ways to improve the human component. I've been an
observer of this all my life, being the son of an Army doctor whose legacy
is the unprecedented survival rate of wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It takes a lot of people to run an Army. Those people
spend a lot of time in a career going to school and training. West Point
trains officers who might make good Lieutenant Colonels someday. Once on
duty, higher rank than that can be attained by performing well and then
graduating from Command and Staff School and the War College, and if you
want to wear stars on your shoulders those shoulders will probably have a
Ranger tab, regardless of your branch, and you will have airborne and/or
pilot's badges on your chest...and you will have a Ph. D. or the equivalent.
I'm sure that Rumsfeld though that all terribly wasteful, but modern war is
a very complex enterprise requiring very intelligent, tough, people who can
make very fast, accurate decisions. The heart of the Army is not all the
high tech gizmos, but the people who serve in it; and that especially
includes the NCOs as well as the commissioned officers. Such people can not
be produced on an assembly line like widgets. They must be nurtured and
cherished and brought along slowly.
McNamera and his "whiz kids" never got this during the
Vietnam War. Rumsfeld makes McNamera look like a genius. His idea of
"transformation" is to run the military like a business corporation, which
is rather like putting gym socks on a duck. They don't fit and they look
really bad. And they get in the duck's way when he walks. The real problem
here is that this administration has put people in charge of the military
who view it with utter contempt and don't listen to all of the very smart,
well trained, and thoughtful people that comprise a think tank unlike any
seen before in history.
They have broken the Army to the point where there is
now a program that pays U.S Navy personnel a bonus of $40,000 simply to
switch services and retrain for the Army. I said from the beginning that
Iraq would be a Tar Baby. It has become like that old joke; "You can't win,
you can't break even...you can't even quit the game." I am not happy to be
right about this, and I will not gloat about the current election results
because the heavy lifting has just begun.
The only solution is increase the size of the Army and
Marines for as many years as needed to field a constabulary that will
suppress the insurrection and stand up a real government in Iraq. That was
ten years in Germany and they are reasonable people. That means an Army
double or triple the size of this and that means a draft and the taxes
needed to pay for it all without bankrupting the nation. Beyond that we need
to turn our gaze back to Latin America and Africa, where the Chinese are
making inroads against our interests.
And we need people in the civilian leadership of this
nation who can look beyond their own narrow interests and the next election
to a strategy that will carry us through the next century.
Sincerely,
Francis Hamit
I said too much when I said they built the
new army; but they did preside over a change to a smaller, faster, leaner
and more high tech army. That was not easy. Then the Iraq war came and they
drained the real army in an attempt to keep the war looking cheaper and use
real soldiers as constabulary. That never works, and won't work now.
In that sense I agree.
If we are to stay in Iraq we need a
constabulary; and if we are to be able to defend ourselves in the real
world, we will need to rebuild the real army that knows how to break things
and kill people.
As to the mechanisms of change, I think a
small part of it may be that The Strategy of Technology, by Possony and
Pournelle, was used as a textbook in all three service academies many years
ago...
Strategy of Technology in pdf format:
==========
Subject: Re: The Army and how it was built
Well Rummy got shown the door this morning and a very
unhappy Bob Gates has been persuaded to step in and clean up the mess. It's
probably a big cut in pay for him since he has to give up not just the
Presidency of Texas A&M but several corporate board seats. Look for him to
do a wholesale housecleaning at DOD and we may see some old familiar faces
being brought in. Bill Odom for one, and Bobby Ray Inman for another
(another Texan). Maybe even Claudia Kennedy as the first female Secretary of
the Army. I have a lot of confidence in Gates. He really is an Eagle Scout
at heart.
McCain came out for a larger Army and Marine Corps.
Even if we remain a republic and not an empire, the current situation seems
to mandate a return to an 18 division Army and a four division Marine Corps,
but we can probably get by with a 400 ship Navy. The new environment is all
Special Ops. I met a sailor on this cruise we went on last month. !5 years
in and with a new kind of rating in the kind of work that [a petty officer
mutual friend] did in 'Nam. The Brown Water Navy is it's own division now.
This guy was very interesting . 15 years in and plans to make his 30. Likes
playing poker.
It will get better now.
Francis Hamit
========
Subject: Dr. Cochran's fallacy
Jerry,
I respectfully submit that Dr. Cochran's fallacy is
the following: In an era when 100 people with enough money and the proper
knowledge can deliver a terrorist nuclear attack that can kill 100,000
people, or a biological attack that would wipe out a nation, we have to
worry about them. It doesn't matter if their 999,999,900 co-religionists are
just waiting for them to get out of the way so they can buy Danish porn and
American pop music. The trick, as Mr. Card correctly points out, is to
remove the 100 without infuriating the other billion or so.
The numbers are, of course, not accurate, but the real
numbers make the problem worse, not better. As I believe you've pointed out,
if the correct number is 1 in a thousand committed fanatics, that is still a
million suicide bombers and WMD developers.
Mr. Boortz links Dan Simmon's April polemic for
election day, saying that he hadn't seen it before, and particularly quotes
the "attack on aviation" analogy that Mr. Card denigrated..
http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm , and the
link appears to be saturated this morning after Mr. Boortz's link).
Jim Woosley
Yes. Indeed.
============
"The X-Files have been closed down."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/
articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=
415514&in_page_id=1770
-- Roland Dobbins
Hoo hah.
============
Subject: A new subscriber, and a thought for the
future
Hello. I've been an on and off reader for around a
year now. I've been planning to subscribe to your site for a couple of
weeks; after reading your reasoned and reasonable take on the elections, I
finally did it. Thanks for the service you provide, and the coherent view.
Anyway, I've been concerned about the shape of the
future for much of my life. Since I was in elementary school, I've thought
that the world was in a race between terrorism and bureaucracy: which would
become the dominant threat to humanity first? Until September 11, I always
thought that bureaucracy would win that race -- and hoped that the critical
time would be long after I'd left this world. Now, it may be that both will
come on with a vengeance. Perhaps not, but there are plenty of troubling
signs.
Like many people, I've struggled with what can be done
about it -- apart from living my own life as well as I can. Recently, some
thoughts have been coming together.
The world may be in for some very rough times. If so,
then enough things are already in motion that little could be done to stop
it. But a lot can be done to cushion the blow, and speed the recovery. It
brings to mind Isaac Asimov's _Foundation_ novels, in a way. Certainly, we
don't have such a precise tool as Psychohistory, or people who can influence
thought, or a distant planet to run to, but some ideas can be adapted.
Suppose we assume that the central government is too
cumbersome and self-serving to respond well to the threats we face. If a
group (or groups) of private individuals were to gather the capability to
pick up some of the legitimate duties of government, if the need were to
arise, then a wide variety of problems could be mitigated. For example, if
even a few groups in and around New Orleans had stockpiled emergency
supplies, had developed redundant communications and transportation routes,
and perhaps most importantly, had trained in police support, then many of
the problems could have been prevented -- all without any additional
government help. Each community group could decide what to support, on an
individual basis -- small, local, and private: about as distant conceptually
from central government bureaucracy as you can get.
This seems to be along the lines of your call for a
return of Civil Defense, but as a purely private enterprise.
The idea's not yet fully-formed, but it seems like it
would be appealing to those of us who see the threat, and feel the need to
do something, but don't know what to do. Since this idea, as it's been
growing, has given me some hope for a plan of action, I thought I'd share
it.
Once again, thanks for the work you do.
-- Steve Carabello
The problem with trying to do as private
action what ought to be an integral part of self-government is that
governments and bureaucracies are jealous. Think Pournelle's Iron Law of
Bureaucracy: those in charge of the police are more interested in the police
organization than in preventing crime. Those in charge of FEMA are more
interested building FEMA than in coping with disasters. The beauty of mostly
local Civil Defense with most local volunteers is that there's not a lot of
bureaucracy to control and thus not a lot of incentive for empire builders.
That doesn't mean there won't be such. Volunteer organizations are often
refuges for those who want authority. But if set up right, this is a way to
make use of that ambition. A disaster gives the local Civil Defense
commander a chance to shine, show off, get public acclaim, and with luck it
will only happen once in his life.
===========
Subject: A thought about the recent election
In the recent election campaign, Phil Angelides tried
to get elected without ever telling anybody what his plans were, or his
stand on any issue. He did this by trying to persuade people to vote for him
because they (supposedly) hated Governor Schwarzenegger. This led to the
spectacle of a Democrat being buried in a landslide by a Republican in a
blue state. I hope that this will send a message to politicians everywhere
that a 100% negative campaign doesn't work because most people won't vote
for a pig in a poke.
-- Joe Zeff The only problem with trouble-shooting is
that sometimes trouble shoots back. http://www.zeff.us http://lasfs.info
========
Subj: The nature of the
existential threat the Terror Masters pose to the United States
During the Cold War, the greatest danger was never
that the Soviet Union would launch an annihilating missile strike against
the United States out of the blue. The greatest danger was that the leaders
of the Soviet Union would reach a position in which they thought they could
get away with taking one more slice -- West Germany, perhaps, or Iran? -- by
conventional means, because the US would be deterred ... only we would *not*
be deterred, and both sides would charge up the escalation ladder, each
hoping to reach a level at which it would have "escalation dominance" and
the other side would back down.
Similarly, the existential threat to the United States
is not that the Terror Masters will become able to launch an overwhelming
attack that will physically destroy the United States, or that will cause
our society to collapse. No, the existential threat is that eventually,
after losing enough cities, the people of the United States would decide
that we needed a *permanent* solution to the terrorist problem -- and we
would embark an a campaign of revenge and preventive genocide that would
make John Derbyshire's "rubble makes no trouble" idea look like a Christmas
party. Remember Admiral Halsey's return to Pearl Harbor after the Japanese
attack? "When I'm finished, the Japanese language will be spoken only in
Hell." And while there would certainly, after that campaign ended, remain a
nation-state called "The United States of America", it wouldn't be a society
very many of us would recognize as American, or care to live in.
Rod Montgomery==monty@sprintmail.com
Before we decide to do imperial things we need
to decide what we are and what we may become. And see
below
=========
Subject: Education and Math...
"In the United States, there are no teachers with real
subject qualifications at all, just various specializations and majors. It
is said that many actually brag about not having any knowledge of
mathematics or science, as somehow distinguishing them as literary or
cultured. It distinguishes them as stupid."
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/personal/mathed.htm
Charles Brumbelow
And your point was? Isn't the solution always
more money for the school system (it won't really go for teacher salaries
but they will have some swell workshops supervised by D. Ed. professors),
and smaller class sizes? That way every child will get a world class college
prep education! Throw in more money!
=========
Subject: Math vs. vampires: vampires lose
Jerry
Mathematicians spoil everything:
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061024_vampire.htm
No vampires, no zombies, no ghosts.
Boo. Hiss.
Ed
Awwww....
=========
Subject: Documents
This is worth looking at.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008423.php
"Over the past year or so, I have provided CQ readers
with a number of translations <http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/cat_saddams_documents.php>
from key Iraqi Intelligence Service documents that have been translated by
either the FMSO or by Joseph Shahda of the Free Republic website. I even
engaged two interpreters to verify one particularly explosive memo <http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006710.php>
last April, after Shahda published his own translation. That memo dealt with
IIS plans to get volunteers for suicide missions to 'strike American
interests".
One particular criticism that appeared with each new
translation was that the documents were never proven genuine, although no
one could explain the logic behind the US government hiding these documents
in Iraqi Arabic among an avalanche of mundanity, only to shove it onto a
shelf for years until Congress authorized their release to the Internet. Now
we find another verification of their authenticity
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/
middleeast/03documents.html?ei=5094&en=
1511d6b3da302d4f&hp=&ex=1162530000&
partner=homepage&pagewanted=print>
this time from the New York Times, which reports
today that the documents constitute a national-security threat:"
A Serving Officer
=================
AND this may be
about enough on this for a while:
Subject: weasels and lions
The analogy is a crappy one. Yes, intent _is_ more
important, because we're dealing with human beings, who can always surprise
you. Your analysis of someone else's capabilities is almost certainly wrong
if you disregard his intentions. The exact same analysis applied in August
2001, except that too few took their intentions seriously. Who thinks of
razor blades as being a tool to murder three thousand people?
Fundamentally, though, Cochran's blind spot - and
yours, I'm beginning to think - is with this business of viewing Iraq as a
country that we went to war with. That is completely wrong. Iraq's military
capabilities and ability or lack thereof to invade or threaten the US is
completely irrelevant. As is the equivalent analysis for any other
Mideastern country or the whole area put together. Because THAT IS NOT THE
KIND OF WAR BEING FOUGHT. It is not Iraq: it is ISLAM, or a major part of
it, and the war they are fighting is one of bodies and blood, not technology
and bombs.
It _could_ be that kind of war if we actually used our
military to its fullest capabilities. It isn't, though, and it seems likely
that we will not be brought to the point where we take the leash off before
we actually _are_ in existential danger, or so damaged that we can't tell
the difference anymore.
Again, all this talk of the Mideast's military
capability was just as true in August 2001. Somehow, that didn't keep Islam
from doing a heck of a lot of damage shortly thereafter. What was all that
about, anyway? What did it mean? Does Cochran have an answer for that? His
preference seems to be that we should have done Afghanistan and then gone
home. What would that have accomplished, long-term? How would it have
prevented more of the same 20 years later?
_My_ answer is that Islam, or a major current within
it, is irredeemably hostile to the West and will continue to harm us
REGARDLESS of costs to itself until it (Islam or that current within it) is
completely and utterly destroyed. I have zero interest in sitting back and
letting the enemy take potshots at us indefinitely. I don't care if any one
potshot is incapable of being fatal, the sum total is a far higher cost than
any sane person should be willing to pay. When you have declared enemies who
are this dedicated, you destroy them. The point of fighting in Iraq is to
bring all this stuff to a head in a time and circumstance of our choosing,
and to give the sane elements within Islam a chance to influence the
outcome. It hasn't really been done very well, but it's a hell of a lot
better than anything else in the past 30 years.
Yours seems to be, if I've understood correctly, that
it meant we should cut off a lot of overseas commitments and pull back to
our own shores. I am not convinced that is anything but a utopian dream; the
jihadists would still see that they don't rule the world and we do, and that
is their reason for wanting to kill us. So they would keep coming. Certainly
for Europe, and I cannot accept simply writing off half of the West without
a fight; that would be folly on the grandest scale.
Cochran's seems to be, pretend none of it exists. At
least I can't see any other prescription coming out of what he's said.
And finally, again, Cochran's views of these things
completely ignores what is going on in Europe, where ordinary people
definitely are in everyday danger, and the societies are starting to crack.
See what's been going on in Belgium, for instance, or the Swedish inner
cities, or the latest incident in the Paris metro. Which country's military
is paying for all that? Where does Cochran fit the thousand of burned cars
into his analysis?
He doesn't, because he's a fool, and he's ignoring
facts that are right in front of his nose.
Kent Peterson urquan@rocketmail.com
"... there was always a minority afraid of something,
and a great majority afraid of the dark, afraid of the future, afraid of the
past ..." - Ray Bradbury, _The Martian Chronicles_
This may be enough because I have become weary
of people who assume that everyone who does not agree with them about a very
complex subject on which most people do not agree is a fool. I weary of that
kind of language, and I suspect the thinking ability of people who are so
damned certain of their conclusions that they cannot think their
disagreements may be caused by anything other than a lack of sense on the
part of the opponent.
People disagree for many reasons. Usually
they disagree because they have different premises, or different goals, or,
quite often, both.
In the above: I assure you Dr. Cochran
does not completely ignores what is going on in
Europe, where ordinary people definitely are in everyday danger, and the
societies are starting to crack.
Perhaps it is quite the
opposite. And I do not see how breaking things and killing people in Iraq
will much change what goes on in Europe where the barbarians were invited to
enter the cities and set up enclaves. I would have thought that the solution
to the burned cars in Paris is some backbone on the part of the French, not
more cluster bombs in Fallujah.
I would also venture to say that no Iraqi
or Iranian or jihadist could take a drink from the Mississippi or plant a
bomb in Indianapolis without our allowing them to be here; and while it may
be easier to defeat the jihadists and plant democracy in Mesopotamia than to
defend our borders, strengthen the Navy and Coast Guard, build a fence along
the border and strengthen the border patrol, and organize our domestic
intelligence services in a rational manner, it is not entirely obvious to
everyone that this is so.
One assumption is that left to themselves
the jihadists will become more competent, and be able to manage a modern
society that threatens the United States.
(I am not trying to solve the problems of
Europe; the Europeans have imported the barbarians and they have as
compensation the liberal philosophy that says this was all a good thing to
do; I don't know how that is going to work out for them, but it's not under
my control and not much under my influence.)
If you assume that the jihadists can in
fact build modern societies, keep their jihadist views, resist the cultural
weapons of the West, and eventually invade the United States, then you take
one view of the world, and you look for remedies to that. One remedy is to
send soldiers into Mesopotamia. But if you really and truly believe that
Islamic society presents an existential threat to the people of the United
States, then would not a cheaper remedy be to nuke them until they glow,
then bounce the rubble?
When you have declared enemies who are this
dedicated, you destroy them. The point of fighting in Iraq is to bring
all this stuff to a head in a time and circumstance of our choosing, and
to give the sane elements within Islam a chance to influence the
outcome. It hasn't really been done very well, but it's a hell of a lot
better than anything else in the past 30 years.
Really? Yet some think we could have closed
the borders, built nuclear power plants and moved toward energy independence
thus depriving the Islamic regimes of most of their income, strengthened our
Navy and Coast Guard, and built an intelligence service that doesn't rely on
theatrics like the TSA, and have done that for far fewer lives and far less
treasure than we have trickled into the sands of Mesopotamia. If the goal is
to bring this war against the jihadists to a head, and to convert this from
what we are doing in Mesopotamia into WARRE against a mortal enemy, I can
think of far better ways to do that than to drive the price of oil higher
and higher and thus enrich our enemies.
I have said repeatedly: we have the
capability for empire. My Norman ancestors understood that well enough. The
Anglo Saxon Norman people are a great deal more warlike than most suppose,
and generally enjoy it. Robert of Normandy, Bohemund, Tancred the Great
understood, and Muslim mothers still frighten their children with threats of
Tancred, and Melanch Rick. It is a good thing that war is so terrible lest
we grow fond of it. Many do grow fond of it. Those who have fought
understand this well. If we decide to become a competent empire we can do
so. The question is what do we want to become. We know how to be a republic.
We have been one. We have not done so well at being imperial, but we can
learn. There may be a cost. Monty has noted one of them.
As to the jihadists being able to defeat
us if we come home, build up the Army -- the Army that defeated the Taliban
and Saddam with such ridiculous ease that it encouraged many to believe we
could rule as well as destroy -- build up the Navy -- a Navy that can deny
access to these shores whenever we like -- close our borders and be careful
who we invite in -- do you believe that? Do you believe that these weasels
can become lions?
I do not advocate that the United States
come home and ignore the world. I do not advocate that we sink the Navy and
ground the Air Force. I do not believe that we should remove the satellites
from space. I wrote a space policy that included a military mission to
insure American access to space and be able to deny access to space to our
enemies. I do not advocate that we leave them in peace to build forces able
to destroy us. But do you really think the weasels can become lions while we
are watching?
The argument for a forward front, fighting
overseas, can be made, but I haven't heard it made definitively. I certainly
do not believe that anyone who doesn't accept this perpetual war for
perpetual peace is a fool.
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Friday
|
