Whilst I have no doubt that you have studied these matters extensively, Will makes several important points and says nothing that warrants such remarks:

"The difference "IS" that you obviously are NOT very well informed (probably, too much CNN) and likely not too well read based on the style of your writing."

I am not a religious man, but just in case your name refers to "reverend" you should study Ephesians 4:2 – "Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love."

I knew a man who lived in fear
It was huge, it was angry it was drawing near
Behind his house, a secret place
Was the shadow of the demon he could never face
He built a wall of steel and flame
And men with guns to keep it tame
Then standing back he made it plain
That the nightmare would never ever rise again
But the fear the fire and the guns remained

It doesn't matter now
It's over anyhow
He tells the world that it's sleeping
But as the night came round, I heard its lowly sound
It wasn't roaring, it was weeping

And then one day the neighbors came
They were curious to know about the smoke and flame
They stood around outside the wall
But of course there was nothing to be heard at all
"My friends," he said, "we've reached our goal, The threat is under firm control
As long as peace and order reign
I'll be damned if i can see a reason to explain
Why the fear and the fire and the guns remain

It doesn't matter now
It's over anyhow
He tells the world that it's sleeping
But as the night came round, I heard its lowly sound
It wasn't roaring, it was weeping

Is there a light, can you feel the light shine
I think i've find a way through
(Yes I found a way through)
I know things have changed but the fear remained in me
Till i touched the light in you

It doesn't matter now
It's over anyhow
He tells the world that it's sleeping
But as the night came round, I heard its lowly sound
It wasn't roaring, it was weeping

Finally, the only reason that I threw politics into the bray was to give example to the person who's handle (NASG) whom asked the question "why" a defense system, such as, SW was needed, or would be deployed? My answer was an attempt to educate him, as to "how" such decisions are massaged by the "liberal media's elite" to sway the opinions of the public. Yes, I know… the methods are universal. You’re suggesting that maybe I may prefer another political system, such as, Russia, Iranian, Sudanese… or… or… or, isn't worthy of rebuttal. If, you'd have bothered to read my earlier posts you could have easily disseminated in your limited state of consciousness that I am pro Star Wars, or leaning that way. The difference between us is — I don't blindly accept the propaganda of my country's free press (or, any country), but prefer standing guard over any representative politician whose political partisanship may lead my nation into the abyss.

"Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right." – Carl Schurz (1829-1906).

Now with that (and YOU) said, I regret having returned to view postings, as this subject is pretty much spent and in the wrong forum to begin with.

And one last thing Mr. Retiree, my years has qualified me to claim that title, as well, only I don't gloat over having reached the mark, as there is much left yet to do and accomplish.

Don't bother to reply, as I shall (unlike) Gen. MacArthur not return.

The agenda can be changed depending on the issues. Take for instance what is currently happening with US primary voting since it began in Iowa. Prior to Iowa the focus was on the Middle East conflict and everyone was touting Rudy Guillani, as the GOP candidate. And he knew his personal history would not play well in the initial primaries, and he's right. So, he opened and then failed in Florida (quickly gone). He was strong on security and under threat ("fear") had the focus stayed he would be the guy to beat. But, as you've probably noticed ALL talk of war and threats have (even from Ahmadinejad of Iran) gone silent. And as expected the incumbent President leaving office is expected to (and did) go mum. The shift was away from fear and war and leveled on the economy. Don't you think it strange – "a shift" – of attention happened, like, opps we've got economic problems. Economics just doesn’t work that way, problem has been there for sometime, but timing by the political-media had already decided "when" the shift would take place.

The shift next time could be back on war and the economy, and other issues. Certainly, Barack Obama, will accept the VP position on Hillary’s ticket, unless, Hillary is confronted by a REAL threat from Obama, and a possibility of losing the nomination… then it’s quite possible she could choose hubby "Slick Willie" as her running mate! I know your asking is that legal? The simple answer is "Yes!" He can’t run for Prez, but he can accept the VP nomination, and could even become Prez, under constitutional succession should Hillary if elected were to depart the office for any reason.

Here’s something for you to consider. . .

The questions that should be asked are "WHY" and "HOW" has the liberal media in America come to be controlled? And "WHO" is behind their acquisitions?

The Bush administration got elected on its conservative platform, by convincing the public that the Republican Party is feeding on conservative roots. As conservative parties go, the current administration doesn't resemble its party's past, confirmed by their budgets submitted to Congress they appear to be left of the most liberal of former Democratic distractions.

The bottom line is that ALL of our Presidents are errand boys (liberal or conservative), no more than compromise figureheads with the unenviable job of simultaneously trying in some way to accommodate the brays of the "Business-Merchant-Manufacturing" class who generally tend to be nationalist and provincial, while kowtowing on pain of media death to the imperatives of the much more powerful, vastly more wealthy, and far more sophisticated “Anglo-American Aristocracy,� who of course are the "internationalists." Anyone who blames them for their policies doesn't understand the job description.

To add to the politicians' problems, the American people are obviously divided into a majority of red-staters’ whose "common sense" tells them that their interests are better represented by "Main Street" than by "Wall Street", and a minority of blue-staters’ who are well-educated, which all too often means that they blindly follow the dictates of their pre-programmed political correctness — a mind-set tightly orchestrated by the best of the best (but sadly bought and paid for) media manipulators and Ivy League opinion makers. Hence, anyone who for whatever twisted reasons wants to be elected President, must appear to tow the red state party line to keep the grass roots from going to seed, while in fact "secretly" following the "offer you can't refuse" dictates of the aristocrats who own the media and who can destroy them on a whim. Does it seem odd that the power structures who put these poor fools into office also on occasion orchestrate their destruction? Not at all, as ONLY the master can wield the whip!

Indeed it is a very tough balancing act for any Republicrat, whether your name is Bush or Clinton.

Remember (if you will), that our country was founded by Whigs who represented the business classes; and, who were nationalist and protectionist. The elite Republican class interests are more in alignment with the people who earned their money through free enterprise than for those whose far huger fortunes come with a name and title. But money doesn't talk it swears, and so the "Tories" really never went away, but rather took the names of, and imbedded themselves in, the "loyal" parties. Clearly they've gradually won the day, starting with Watergate, and are now consolidating their control over America. So let's not in any way confuse a free-trading, free-spending Tory from the Eastern Establishment like ANY Bush with the "conservative" movement of the nationalists, let alone with the mind-set of our Whig founding fathers.

America's media has been bought and paid for by the elite, and over time has been converted to propagandize the advance of an agenda that was secretly founded in 1891, and further their quest for power and influence to be extended across the globe in fulfillment of their cause.

Enuf’ said. . . feel free to e-mail me at your convenience.

Curt B.
BallyZACA@msn.com
An American ex-Patriot, living in Sweden

So, here goes… pay attention. . .

I would put forward a LAW of social and political relationships, namely, that three factors cannot coexist: (1) a marked disparity of power; (2) private access to the instruments of power; and (3) equality of groups or nations. Where one group is strong enough to push another around and stand to gain by it, it will do so. Even if the state would abstain from aggression, companies and individuals will not wait for permission. Rather, they will act in their own interests, dragging others along, including the state.

Therefore, consider (if you will) the USA isn't the "big push" behind deployment of "Star Wars," but instead the corporate and military industrial complexes of both Europe and the USA who stand to benefit financially. And the real benefits of a shield isn't going to be the North American continent (distance and time – launch to strike), but instead Western Europe; and, providing the added security for those newly accepted EU member states of Eastern Europe, who would look favorably on a shield to protect them from what they fear most (and with good reason) — RUSSIA.

Finally, everyone seems to misunderstand the structure of the USA’s foreign policy, including most Americans, so you Europeans are not faulted, but, perhaps I can shed some light on the subject to help tone down the “easy to hate America rhetoric� that is finally being toned-down (thankfully) to a change in French-German political leadership. Having said that, please consider “who� creates and structures the foreign policy of the USA? Your right “if� you answered the “Committee on Foreign Relations!� But, did you know the CFR’s membership is made up by 80% Anglophiles? So, consider “who� is really behind driving a policy, such as, Star Wars… and you might find the answer rests in London not in Washington, D.C. (“jolly good�).

There, I'm now done… will not raise the ante to .04 cents. Promise!

Granted my example was simple.

My point was totalitarian government does not breed the skills that lead to a democracy. It makes it more difficult as there is a tendency to return to absolute rule. Look at Putin…

I wouldn't put it the past the US to try it either.

As for the analogy, it's not exactly accurate since we border mainly Belarus and Ukraine to the east. No, I wouldn't mind – we're both in NATO after all.

TEHRAN, Iran – "Iran launched a research rocket Monday and unveiled its first major space center, which will be used to launch research satellites, state-run television reported."

"Some Western experts also have raised the possibility that Iran's space program may be a cover to more fully develop its military ballistic missiles, a prospect many find troubling at a time when the U.S. and others worry Tehran is trying to develop nuclear weapons."

tick tick tick…..

Recent addition includes india, pakistan, iran, n. korea.Nothing can revert the trend. Everyone wants to be in control.

A defend shield can at least deter some of this power mongrel to think twice.

"I must admit that when I wrote my original comment I spoke inaccurately; I had in mind the period from the late 70s to the mid 80s. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that there is some historical support for the Soviet claims that they were reacting to American aggression *throughout* the Cold War. Indeed, if it had not been for the American policy of "containment" of communism, which began under Truman in 1946, things might have been very different."

I apologize if I overreacted. The association of the Cold War and Neocons set me off, since it is absurd.

I would say if there wasn't a policy of containment, things would be very different. The murdering communist regime of the Soviet Union might have survived, and continued to repress and kill those who would oppose its rule. And Poland would not be free as it is today.

The Soviets pushed for hegemony as far as they could. And it was only the resistance of the West that prevented it. They were not reacting to challenges against them. They were bent on world domination. The combined will of the West prevented that (capital letter intended).

Note that few of the countries that were part of the Soviet Union are now effective democracies. Association as a country does not flourish under totalitarian rule. Look at Yugoslavia. As soon as the power structure that Tito built fell apart, so did the country, violently. Those countries fortunate to be part of the West after WWII had a chance to build democratic institutions. Those in the Soviet Block only had totalitarian rule. Poland stands apart because they never lost their national identity. A counter example is Belarus that now struggles to have a valid election.

Reagan was right to call the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire." The defeat of communism in the Cold War was a great triumph for the entire world, as it freed millions and destroyed a totalitarian regime.

Based on your comments on Putin, I think we might agree in the end. But the actions of the Soviet Union in the Cold War were theirs alone. It is wrong to assign any blame to the West for making them feel paranoid. As individuals and states, we are responsible for our own actions.