ZGram - 11/23/2001 - "You Can't Nuke Anthrax!"

irimland@zundelsite.org irimland@zundelsite.org
Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:00:38 -0800


=====
=====
=====

Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland

 ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny

 November 23, 2001

 Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

 Yesterday I promised you the emails of the eleven senators who did not
sign "The Bond/Schumer Letter for Strong Support of Israel".  Several of my
scouts lent a hand.  I have not found the time to double-check if these
emails are actually active, but in any case the web-page that lists them is
at http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm and you may verify and
double-check them for yourself.

 It would be an excellent idea to bookmark the Senate web page for future
use regarding issues where you would like to have a voice.  Remember the
Rule of Thumb:  Every letter from a constituent is counted by staff as
1,000 letters representing exactly your point of view.  Think of all the
postage you can save!

 Therefore, please send a ***brief*** note of thanks for their courageous
stand to the following senators:

 Joseph Biden
 senator@biden.senate.gov

 Jeff Bingamansenator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov

 Robert Byrdsenator_byrd@byrd.senate.gov

 Thad Cochran
 senator@cochran.senate.gov

 Judd Gregg
 mailbox@gregg.senate.gov

 Chuck Hagelchuck_hagel@hagel.senate.gov

 James Jeffords
 Vermont@Jeffords.Senate.gov

 Patrick Leahysenator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov

 Richard Lugarsenator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov

 Patty Murray
 senator_murray@murray.senate.gov

 Pat Roberts
 http://www.senate.gov/~roberts/email.htm

If you want to shame the 89 US senators who sold out to the pressure of the
Israeli Lobby - the disgraceful Bond/Schumer Letter - no one is going to
stop you.  But please remember:  Revisionists have class!  Refrain from
offensive language!  That's the preferred modus operandi of our enemies!
You can always tell who's who and what's what by what comes out of their
mouths!

 =====

 Moving right along, here is another thought-provoking column by Joe Sobran :

  [START]

  What Is "Defense"?

 November 6, 2001

  by Joe Sobran

       For the first time in living memory, Americans have to think about
defense. Most of us (I include myself, until fairly recently) have assumed
that our government was defending us. We equated military spending in
staggering sums -- sustaining heavily armed soldiers, sailors, and pilots
around the world -- with defense. And we thought that meant safety.

      It didn't. Now we know better. All that military spending was making
us enemies all over the earth. As a result, we have to worry about people
who were no threat to us a few years ago -- cruel, cunning men who have
found methods of by-passing traditional military forces.

      After World War II the Department of War was renamed the Department
of Defense to soften its image. "Defense" sounded nicer than "war." Yet the
United States military has been less and less oriented to what the
Constitution calls "the common defense of the United States." Its offensive
power has become stupendous, and globally ubiquitous, but its actual
defensive power turns out to have been seriously flawed. It was designed to
deter attacks by rival states, but other kinds of attacks were hardly
imagined. An enemy state can be destroyed with overwhelming force; a loose
affiliation of guerrillas, saboteurs, or terrorists is another matter.

      Nuclear weapons, which a few of our more hairy- chested pundits are
recommending now, are useless when you have to defend -- really defend --
every post office, airport, and shopping mall. You can't nuke anthrax.

      The nuclear option is being urged out of sheer frustration at a
shadowy, dispersed, elusive enemy. Some people feel that our ultimate
weapons must prevail, if only we use enough of them. But in this case,
"enough" would mean genocide. Virtually the entire populations of several
countries would have to be annihilated in order to kill a few scattered
terrorists. And that's assuming that the terrorists would be close enough
to the nuclear targets, rather than hiding in remote areas.

      Speaking of targets, I've read several newspaper columns urging
nuking, but none of them have specified a target. They can't. The whole
idea of nuclear weapons is strategic: to destroy major targets, especially
big cities. But nobody knows where the relevant targets are, or why nuclear
weapons would be any more effective than conventional explosives. In
essence we are being told: "Don't just stand there -- nuke something!"

      The old model of a centralized enemy state doesn't apply here. The
would-be nukers seem to forget that all the atrocities the enemy has
committed so far have been the work of men who were and are already within
U.S. borders. If Osama bin Laden, sitting in an Afghan cave, had a change
of heart tomorrow, he might be unable to call off further strikes.

      The notion that bin Laden exercises close central control of the
terrorist forces may be an optimistic assumption. It allows our government
to feel it can win by targeting him -- or can at least justify its efforts
to us. The politicians only have to make us feel they're achieving
something with their "defense" forces, even if they aren't really getting
an inch closer to victory or are actually doing more harm than good.

      This can be seen as a war between the public and private sectors. As
usual, the public sector -- the U.S. Government, in this case -- is
outspending the private sector -- the terrorists -- by a huge margin. And
as usual, the massively organized and centralized public sector is wasting
a colossal amount of wealth, while the decentralized private sector is
getting far more bang for its buck.

      Conservatives and libertarians have long argued that the private
sector is far more efficient than the public sector, but this isn't exactly
the kind of demonstration we had hoped for. We'd rather Bill Gates made the
point than Osama bin Laden. Not that it will sink in with our government
either way. The lesson will be lost on believers in the megastate, as the
calls for nuking the terror network illustrate.

      Talk about defense spending. This time it's not just our government
that's paying; all of us are bearing the enormous cost of anticipating
attacks on every conceivable target. And apart from the expense, there is
the awful anxiety and fatigue. Welcome to the real world of defense.

[END]

=====

Thought for the Day:

"A Constitution is a terrible thing to waste."

(Letter to the Zundelsite)