My superduper-secret deep source, hereinafter referred to as "Informant X," has made it known to me, possibly through certain intermediaries, that he or she would have preferred that I had never said anything on the subject at all. Apparently, either the original message I received was incomplete or I failed to decode the section with the "don't say a word" part in it. If Informant X or any of his or her immediate informees wishes to say more on the subject, then he or she or they can do so for themselves. My original FYI post contained all that I knew, or thought that I knew, on the main question. Complicating the matter for me is the fact that I don't really understand how a "ban" on ET is promulgated or enforced. However, we do seem to be wild-less for the moment, lending at least some credibility to Informant X's original information. I would suggest that, if you remain interested in the subject, and if wild fails to make a re-appearance, then we can start a "Where is wild-o?" thread, and see if something turns up.
Hmm... the sixteen members of the Spanish terrorist cell were raided and arrested early dawn, January 24th in Madrid. Wild's last post was made on January 23, 8:11PM EST, which equates to 2:11 AM, January 24th, Madrid time.
One other possibility is that either you concocted the story, or were played for a fool. Wouldn't it be embarrassing for someone to comment on rumors, publish them, then come to find out that the facts were never checked before doing so? Isn't that like something Wild might do to support his agenda? Kinda damages one's credibility, doesn't it?
The USA must be informed that she is setting a precedent, from which there can be no turning back... If a non-UN mandated attack by the USA on Iraq happens, the USA will have zero moral standing to comment on relatively probable unilateral attacks by China on Taiwan, or by India on Pakistan... and the USA would not have the balls to take on the geopolitical threat posed by China or India which jointly comprise 2.26 billion people and are (unlike Iraq) nuclear-rmed and pretty skeptical of the US' claim to be the bastion of civilization... if the USA did (in her stupidity) decide to take on either China or India, she will have cemented the trilateral strategic axis of Russia-India-China envisaged those many years ago by the then Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Primakov... this axis would be a much more befitting challenge to US imperialism than Bush's crazy notion that somehow Iraq and Iraq pose a threat to the USA, being part of his "axis of evil"... So the USA will be have as enemies both the Islamic people and a nuclear-armed triangle of US skeptics... lets see: 1.2 billion muslims, 1.26 billion Chinese, 1 billion Indians... add to that the Russians and there you have a pretty neat opposition to US imperialism... Dangerous precedents are being set... we are seeing the death of (admittedly a somewhat flawed) system of international stability administered through the UN, and we are seeing the beginning of what will I guess be a somewhat anarchic century...
Another possibility is that I'm protecting a source who may not deserve protecting, and attempting belatedly to comply with a request sheerly out of my good nature and perhaps unjustified generosity. In my original post, my language made clear that I could not be completely sure of the information that I was passing on: Note the use of the words "perhaps," "I believe," "may," and so on. Though the informant claimed certitude, I could not and did not. I'm well aware that it's always possible, if not very likely, that the informant is just as much a strange agent as the wild one himself...
It is always difficult for a journalist to prove the "certitude" of an informant.....unless the journalist checks the facts from the a direct source that can verify the truth of a rumor. That is why editors of respected publications publish fact, and require their reporters to do the same. The Golbe, the National Enquirer, and many other famous rags will publish anything if they think it makes for a good "story." That is why people pick up a copy of the New York Times for news, and take the Globe with them to the toilet for some mindless crap.
In your opinion... In the opinion of many, the US would have no "moral standing" even with a UN mandate - which enemies of the US or US policy would no doubt ascribe to US manipulation and pressure. In the opinion of many others, the US and the rest of the international community already possess multiple UN "mandates" to act against Saddam and his regime, and it's the UN's "moral standing" and credibility that are at stake. In my opinion, that's wild, obviously slanted speculation. It's easy to spin scenarios, difficult to make the world cooperate with them. Possibly, but, as above, the precedents argument cuts both ways. What about the precedent of a fascist dictator repeatedly defying the clearly stated will of the international community, and conspicuously backing away from solemn treaty commitments, and getting away with it? What about the precedent of the US failing to act on its own clearly stated determination to act? How would THAT affect perceptions in China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and elsewhere? If you really want to see a "somewhat" or even "very" anarchic century, then the best way to get it might be for an irresolute and weakened US to retreat from its international interests into Fortress America, and leave things for the regional powers to "work out" on their own.
Unfortunately, the transparently imperialistic activities and character of the USA will prevent her from stopping the murder and conquest of people around the world in the name of resource acquisition and geopolitical control... I am surprised by people who express consternation that the USA is justifiably the most depised nation on the planet...
For those who found the first Friedman piece posted here of interest: Thinking About Iraq (II) By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN In my column on Wednesday I laid out why I believe that liberals underestimate how ousting Saddam Hussein could help spur positive political change in the Arab world. Today's column explores why conservative advocates of ousting Saddam underestimate the risks, and where we should strike the balance. Let's start with one simple fact: Iraq is a black box that has been sealed shut since Saddam came to dominate Iraqi politics in the late 1960's. Therefore, one needs to have a great deal of humility when it comes to predicting what sorts of bats and demons may fly out if the U.S. and its allies remove the lid. Think of it this way: If and when we take the lid off Iraq, we will find an envelope inside. It will tell us what we have won and it will say one of two things. It could say, "Congratulations! You've just won the Arab Germany â a country with enormous human talent, enormous natural resources, but with an evil dictator, whom you've just removed. Now, just add a little water, a spoonful of democracy and stir, and this will be a normal nation very soon." Or the envelope could say, "You've just won the Arab Yugoslavia â an artificial country congenitally divided among Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, Nasserites, leftists and a host of tribes and clans that can only be held together with a Saddam-like iron fist. Congratulations, you're the new Saddam." In the first scenario, Iraq is the way it is today because Saddam is the way he is. In the second scenario, Saddam is the way he is because Iraq is what it is. Those are two very different problems. And we will know which we've won only when we take off the lid. The conservatives and neo-cons, who have been pounding the table for war, should be a lot more humble about this question, because they don't know either. Does that mean we should rule out war? No. But it does mean that we must do it right. To begin with, the president must level with the American people that we may indeed be buying the Arab Yugoslavia, which will take a great deal of time and effort to heal into a self-sustaining, progressive, accountable Arab government. And, therefore, any nation-building in Iraq will be a multiyear marathon, not a multiweek sprint. Because it will be a marathon, we must undertake this war with the maximum amount of international legitimacy and U.N. backing we can possibly muster. Otherwise we will not have an American public willing to run this marathon, and we will not have allies ready to help us once we're inside (look at all the local police and administrators Europeans now contribute in Bosnia and Kosovo). We'll also become a huge target if we're the sole occupiers of Iraq. In short, we can oust Saddam Hussein all by ourselves. But we cannot successfully rebuild Iraq all by ourselves. And the real prize here is a new Iraq that would be a progressive model for the whole region. That, for me, is the only morally and strategically justifiable reason to support this war. The Bush team dare not invade Iraq simply to install a more friendly dictator to pump us oil. And it dare not simply disarm Iraq and then walk away from the nation-building task. Unfortunately, when it comes to enlisting allies, the Bush team is its own worst enemy. It has sneered at many issues the world cares about: the Kyoto accords, the World Court, arms control treaties. The Bush team had legitimate arguments on some of these issues, but the gratuitous way it dismissed them has fueled anti-Americanism. No, I have no illusions that if the Bush team had only embraced Kyoto the French wouldn't still be trying to obstruct America in Iraq. The French are the French. But unfortunately, now the Germans are the French, the Koreans are the French, and many Brits are becoming French. Things could be better, but here is where we are â so here is where I am: My gut tells me we should continue the troop buildup, continue the inspections and do everything we can for as long as we can to produce either a coup or the sort of evidence that will give us the broadest coalition possible, so we can do the best nation-building job possible. But if war turns out to be the only option, then war it will have to be â because I believe that our kids will have a better chance of growing up in a safer world if we help put Iraq on a more progressive path and stimulate some real change in an Arab world that is badly in need of reform. Such a war would indeed be a shock to this region, but, if we do it right, there is a decent chance that it would be shock therapy. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/26/opinion/26FRIE.html
Funny. You are in essence suggesting that China doesn't practice aggression for "moral" reasons, and fear about what others would do based on the precedent of their breech of "moral" conduct. I am sure that is what is holding them back from attacking Taiwan, a deep sense of the moral and ethical consequences of an agressive attack. The fact that Taiwan is supported by the full force, if need be, of the Americans doesn't factor into their thinking at all, they are pure moralists and care what the rest of the world thinks about them. Boy, the Chinese are the moral leaders of the world, aren't they.