An Honest Rag

Hi, everybody at Brazzil! First of all I want to congratulate you all for the success of this great source of information and opinion. The only other time I feel happy as if I was reading one of your issues, is when I am watching Def Poetry Jam. What both have in common? Honesty! Brazzil is one of those things that now that we have it, we ask ourselves how could we have lived without it for so long! It makes me feel like asking you if there's anything I can do to help? Let me know!

I am a reader since 2001, and one of my dreams is write something good enough to be published in your magazine. Because, that's one of the things that make this magazine great: that IS possible! So, who knows in the next issue! Keep up the good work! Haissam Safie (Brazuca living in Jersey, despite the name!)

Haissam Safie
Harrison, New Jersey

A Lesson on Argentina

Dear John Fitzpatrick, I came across your article entitled "Will Argentina Roar Again" - http://www.brazzil.com/2003/html/news/articles/jun03/p112jun03.htm  - and I have several disputes with it. I found it to be overly general in its presentation of reasons why things are in their present state, as well as what that state is exactly. For example: "Brazil paid a high price for the end of the decade-long system, which linked the Argentinean peso to the U.S. dollar. There was a spillover effect, as nervous foreign investors tarred other emerging economies with the Argentinean brush."

I believe this is entirely, if not very close to false. No mention is made about how Brazil benefited tremendously over time from the peg of the peso to the dollar, both in exporting to Argentina and competing with Argentine exports on the international market. Long before the dollar/peso peg was detached it is clear that "nervous foreign investors" had already sucked everything out of Argentina and had begun in Brazil.

All of a sudden the scales were given a huge correction and a great source of Brazil's income (exports to Argentina) dried up. This was not a tarring but an immediate loss of revenues. On top of this were the effects of the global economy of the entire world. Now, also take a closer look at the public debts of both Argentina and Brazil. A much greater portion of Brazil's public debt is held by Brazilians; as compared to Argentina, where the lion's share is held by foreign investors.

Watching Lula dance to the IMF and World Bank drum is not surprising—as he is simultaneously dancing to assuage centers of power within Brazil. Kirchner may not be so willing to join the groove for several reasons:

1) Metaphorically speaking, Argentina has been much more brutally raped than Brazil when it comes to foreign investments and the privatization of state industries, which began around the time of Menem's peso/dollar peg.

2) Much of Argentina's debt is for projects that were promised but never completed—everything from roads and bridges to water treatment facilities. (Thus Kirchner's mention of debt validity) Further, many foreign investments were approved on bribes and pressure, and resulted in theft of resources. For example, Aerolineas Argentinas was bought by Spanish interests, soon after which the first thing they did was to steal all of the good aircraft. Everything from oil and gas to coastal fishing rights that was privatized and sold off to outside investors has been exploited to maximum effect.

3) Argentina found itself in it's predicament precisely by following the advice and demands of the IMF to the letter. (see the Washington Post: "Argentina, Shortchanged - Why the Nation That Followed the Rules Fell to Pieces By Joseph E. Stiglitz Sunday, May 12, 2002; Page B01) It should still be available online or I have a text copy I can e-mail you if interested. So the nature of the public debt in Argentina is a much different beast than Brazil, and Brazil has not been tarred by an Argentine brush.

Investor talk on Wall Street is quite general- for Latin America, but the investors themselves are well attuned to where their money should go. Another area that gives one a sore spot from reading your article is the comments about ineptitude in replacing the military generals. Here is a cut and paste: "He [Kirchner] got off to a bad start by warning the armed forces to keep out of politics and reshuffling the high command. Since the Argentinean army has been quiet over the last decade, this was a pretty inept thing to do."

While it may not have been a necessary action, I believe there are two reasons why this is going on.

1) The exercise of this power, as well as sending a message to the military itself, sends a strong message to the public. In fact, the public response here has been very positive to this action. There has also been a positive response to the more recent shake up of the Police—where one finds an incredible amount of low level corruption. [Side note to this: As a US citizen I had no idea what the word corruption meant when it was used in describing Third World countries like Argentina. It takes a while to sink in. After being here for about two years I am beginning to see the picture but still, there is a lot to discover.

Also, as I watch what is happening in the US with the Bush administration it surprises me how corrupt things are getting there... another subject for another day perhaps.]

2) Should he now succeed in removing some of the supreme court judges installed by Menem, prosecution of criminals from the military dictatorship may be possible. Removing potential political influences of the military—or connections, would seem a very wise thing to do. Considering the fact that more than 30,000 people disappeared under the military dictatorship, you can assume there is much to be done before anything resembling justice is ever served.

The Menem regime tried and succeeded in pardons, cover-ups, and really packing the closets with skeletons. The public thirsts burningly for these actions to be taken—and exactly the opposite of what you say, this is a great start. OK, on Andrew Pratt Gray, I have no idea if this man is on the way out or not, but it is definitely an interesting dissonance. If he is replaced it will be interesting to see how Wall Street reacts. On a similar tack, it's also amusing that George Bush's treasury secretary has commented in ways that assume or predict a falling dollar—but yesterday, at the G8, President Bush strongly reaffirmed his commitment to a strong US dollar. Is there some sort of reverse-echo somewhere?

Lastly, this paragraph would seem wrong: "The fact that the IMF has gone out of its way to help Brazil, while treating Argentina harshly, reflects the difference in the regional and international importance of the two countries. A collapse of the Brazilian economy would have had a more contagious global effect than that which resulted from the Argentinean debacle. Argentineans did not like this treatment but it reflected reality." This is false for two reasons.

1) As stated above, Argentina's debts are overwhelmingly to foreign entities in comparison to Brazil. While I do not know the exact size in GDP of either country, I do not believe the GDP of Brazil is that much bigger than Argentina—in that it would have a more profound global effect on loans and investor profits in a crash situation. Furthermore, the game of foreign credit for infrastructure improvement projects won by foreign bidders who lined all the right pockets game hasn't worked as well in Brazil. There must be something more at stake there, as in a possible buffer zone for the contagion... not because of some idea about international importance. Lula is nothing but a dog and pony show if he folds to pressure from Washington on a free trade deal. That's perhaps what is at stake.

2) Regional and international importance has nothing to do with IMF policy in this case. It seems more like the revenues had fully ceased flowing into the pockets of the foreign tycoons and there was no more to be made under the current burden of debt. The economic engine had fully stalled and there was rioting in the streets. It should also be noted that as the dollar strengthened it had an inverse effect on the Argentine ability to service its debt, compete in the world market, and thus, the IMF treatment did not reflect reality. It further exacerbated the problem. OK, I would be very curious how you would respond to my comments.

I'm originally from a farm in the Midwest, Minnesota, USA. I've been living in Argentina for about two years and I love it.... It's a beautiful country. I certainly don't mean to get into any sort of contest with you, but the perspective is much different here than what you have written.

Thomas Hutton
Buenos Aires, Argentina

Let's Lower the Voice

I like your webpage and articles and I read them often. However, articles like from Ricardo Amaral (all of them ) are showing an increasingly anti-US stance based upon ignorance. While few admire George Bush, I don't think it's Brazil's or even this literary endeavor's best interest to increase the level of rabid anti US stupidity—see "Brazil should have Nukes" by Amaral! Irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst. We all should be open and not be puppets of the extreme left (or any other for the matter). Cheers from Italy.

Joseph Walker
Italy, Via Internet

On the Fast Track

For the last couple of weeks, I have had the pleasure of reading your publication mostly online. This past week, I was very pleased to find an article about the Brazilian Indy Car drivers and the unique flavor they bring to the sport. As someone who follows these things quite closely, it was refreshing to find a publication that took this concept beyond that of driving cars.

Brazzil Magazine seems to pride itself in bringing to its readers all about Brazil, and this coverage is right up there with soccer and Carnaval. We are talking about history in the making where Brazilians are making a difference along with a name for themselves. It all started with a young man by the name of Fittipaldi who opened the doors to what we are seeing today… Seven Brazilian drivers in last year's race with two finishing in the top 5 and 6 competing in this year's race with the first, second and third place going
to Brazilians.

This is an incredible feat and one that promises to make Brazil a prominent nation in this revival of what is known as Formula Indy. I can't wait for the Brickyard 400 to get here (along with lots of Brazilians from all over the world) so I can see Christian Fittipaldi prove himself as worthy as those who precede him in NASCAR none-the-less.

Thanks for your vision of Brazzil Magazine and thanks for covering this angle of the Brazilian culture. Muito obrigado e un abraço entusiástico,

Enrique Barreto
Via Internet

Dangerous Garotinhos

Re: "Can God Save Rio?" by Norman Madarasz - http://brazzil.com/2003/html/news/articles/may03/p119may03.htm  

Fantastic article. The Garotinhos are a truly frightening pair of low-life bible-thumping thieves who deserve to be run out of the country. Today's papers: Garotinho's arm around Luis Eduardo Soares in a gesture of reconciliation. What's that? Makes me want to scream! How can this be happening?! I just can't help it but I don't trust chubby hubby with R$40 milhões.

Michelle Peria
Anthropologist UFRJ

You're Welcome

I loved the content of this magazine! I am from Recife, living in the Washington, DC metropolitan area for 8 years. Thank you so much for having put all of this together!

Adriana Machado Williams
Reston, Virginia

That's Gil's Tribute

Dear, John Fitzpatrick, in your most recent article in Brazzil, you wonder "Why someone as talented as Gil should waste time on something as trite, repetitive and monotonous as reggae...". While I must agree with you on the quality of Gil's most recent product, I must inform you that reggae music has influenced Gil's music greatly over the course of his career. I encourage you to become familiar with some of his most well-known songs, which are very reggae-ish, e.g.: "Vamos Fugir."

In sum, while it is possible that he was trying to reach out to a younger audience with his reggae effort, I think it would probably be more accurate to say he was paying tribute to one of his (and a great number of other Brazilian artists', e.g. Caetano, Djavan, etc.) major musical influences.

Tarik Gause
Via Internet

Should I Say I Do?

I am an American black. I have been engaged to a white Brazilian woman whom I intend to marriage, but lately I have been questioning the attitude of her family towards me. Their lukewarm attitude sparks a sense of uneasiness, but they hid through the shared sense of me not being able to speak Portuguese and therefore not understanding the way they feel about me.

As an African-born American who has experienced my share of racism in the States, I do not want to become a part of people whom I have so far respected as being much more homogenized and therefore will be more understanding and accepting of my African roots. I very much admire the similarity of the communal, "non-materialistic attitude" and closeness of the Brazilian life-style to my African root, but I am still weary. I rather get married to someone who shares my values than be part of a family which hypocritically accepts me for some obvious reasons they deny.

Please, help me understand by giving me a clear perspective of what Brazilians think about black and most importantly the Brazilian women attitude to marriage commitments.

Kofi Amponsah
Via Internet

Food for Nukes

Dear Prof. Ricardo, I have just read your latest article, "Food for Nukes, the Answer for Brazil". In Iraq, the UN did impose sanction on Iraq and at the same time implemented the food for oil programme. Only recently it was being abolished after several arguments at the UN among those G8 countries. Well you are absolutely correct that America holds the supreme power in almost any cases in this world. In fact Malaysia's government officers have been given stern warning recently by the American Ambassador to watch out for their mouths, in other words "be careful with what you say or else........". The same case with Cambodia and Thailand. Since Mr. Collin Powell will be visiting Cambodia soon, three suspects have been retained in connection with Osama bin Laden terrorist network. I guess it takes a lot of effort to counter such coincidences. People beginning to question the position of American soldiers at the moment in the middle-east. Can they bring anarchy to an end in Iraq?

Lina
Via Internet

Saudi Money

Dear Prof. Ricardo, You did mention about the Finance Minister of Saudi Arabia and how he should invest in Brazil in "Dear Saudis, Play Safe, Bring Your Money to Brazil"

It is a good idea. Arabs must stand united in order to fight for their rights. I just hope the US government does not freeze those money in the bank. What could possibly happen when the CIA and FBI agents start to dig in to those accounts and begin to perform such fraudulent acts?

When I discovered that Enron was in the state of bankruptcy and had some connection with Mr. George Bush cronies, I just can't imagine the kind of financial mess that could possibly happen next to anyone who invests vastly in the US. If I am one of the Princes of Saudi Arabia Kingdom, I would simply close all of my accounts, transfer all of my money as soon as possible and think of my future investment. In Brazil, I would like to invest in education.

Besides, that's what my great, great, great-grandfather from the Middle East often does, invest in good education. Then Prof. Ricardo, my next step is to build a nuclear plant. Before that I must make sure that Mr. Bush dogs of wars do not get a sneeze of this risky plan. Best regards

Lina
Via Internet

Princes Are Not Dumb

Ricardo AmaraI, you did a splendid job on your research but I don't think the Crown Prince would be so foolish as to invest in a country which is in economic transition. Brazil was a capitalist country and is operating under facade of capitalism while it is undergoing an economic communist revolution. Who in their right mind would throw 2 trillion into such an outdated, unstable and unproductive economic system?

Via Internet

Why Not Brazil?

Dear Mr. Amaral, I read your article and I could not agree with you more. I like the point you make that Brazil should be a nuclear power. People who say Brazil can never develop nuclear weapons don't know what they are talking about . If poor countries like North Korea Pakistan and for that matter Israel can develop nuclear weapons why not Brazil?? Brazil is a very big and rich country and and still basically unexplored.

If huge gas oil or gold reserves are ever found you can be sure that the eyes of the greediest will fall upon it . And look what happened to the Arab countries who are weak and defenseless( despite being forced to waste tens of billions of dollars in buying US arms e.g. UAR spent 10 billion on warplanes) The US controls all the oil there with the exception of Iran. Iran also had tens of billions of dollars frozen and eventually confiscated by the US when the US puppet and gangster shah was overthrown and Iran became a free country.

Therefore you are totally right to say that Brazil needs powerful defense forces with the latest technology to defend from future threats , blackmail and bullying from the the world greatest thief and kleptomaniac the USA.

People say there is poverty in Brazil and money should be used to feed the poor. This is a silly argument. You have people hungry and homeless in the US and that does not stop the US from spending 400 billion a year on arms. Brazil is a big food exporter and hence that food could be used to feed the poor in Brazil. But Brazil will become a mighty power only when it has mature and patriotic leaders who will stand up for the interest on its own people and not the IMF World Bank and international speculators.

As long as Brazil keeps on paying tens of billions of dollars to International Bankers, no amount of reform will alleviate the suffering of the poor. If Brazil was a nuclear power it would never be bullied or blackmailed into parting with all this money under the pretext of paying it's debt.

I've been following politics since the early 70's and Brazil has always been paying its debt. Yet now it 54% of its GDP. This obscenity should be stopped once and for all and no more money should be given to the International banks. The US never pays it's debt . It has more than 8 trillion in debts and growing. So I totally agree with your article. there should be more people like you to change the world and make it a better place.

Joe
Via Internet

Race, Here and There

Alan Marcus, in his article in the current issue of Brazzil Magazine, attempts to dissect the meaning of the word "race" or its Portuguese counterpart "raça". He tries to give a balanced view but his attempt actually is proof that race is perhaps "the" issue of this decade here in the US. Race seems to be heating up as a topic in Brazil also.

These are two very different countries. The US as recently as the 1960s had "Jim Crow" laws and signs posted in public that enforced racist policies that most white Americans approved of at the time. Brazil on the other hand has always tried to downplay race as a factor in its society. Often Brazilians state that their society only discriminates by class. This attitude is actually a denial of the reality of the role that race plays in Brazil.

All of this reminds me of often repeated phrase that many experts in the field quote "To refuse to talk about race is racist!" ... What they mean is that silence on the issue actually supports racist policies!

Brian Coff
Via Internet

Portuguese: There Is Only One

Hi! I read a text of yours on the Internet, regarding Brazil and correcting the common error many do when they take that country as a Spanish speaking one. However, you induced the reader in another mistake, which is (to me) serious.

More concretely, you state they speak Portuguese, "Or better yet, Brazilian Portuguese. Just like there is a difference between Spanish and Portuguese, it is worthy to mention that Brazil has its own version of Portuguese. Different vocabulary, grammatic, and pronunciation (this is a big one!) separate it from its European sister."

That's wrong. They speak Portuguese, period. They speak their own dialect (Brazilian Portuguese), in the same way people in the Azores (which is part of Portugal) have a pronunciation almost impossible to understand by a continental Portuguese. They use several different words, and the grammar is somewhat reminiscent of ancient Portuguese. But the language is the same.

On the contrary, Spanish is indeed a different language. So, you cannot compare "Brazilian" Portuguese to Portuguese in the same way as Portuguese to Spanish. And, last but not least, vocabulary, grammatic and pronunciation don't separate it from its European sister: they make it somewhat different than their European father!

Jorge Páramos
Via Internet

US Arab Interests

I read your article and, for us, the extraordinary boldness of your comments regarding Saudi-US relations. Contrary to what you may believe, US Saudi relations are much more stable than is commonly believed. Any attempt to confiscate Saudi Royal Assets will hurt the US economy more than it will do good. The problems for both the US and Saudi economy, should such a confiscation occur, will simply be intolerable. The confidence that Saudi's have in investing in America is a mutual awareness that rash, dangerous actions, from either side, will be unconstructive and hurtful to all. Finally, Brazil does not really need Saudi money - You can generate your own state credit and invest in infrastructure projects if you have strong leaders willing to enjoin, support and implement such policies.

Amman M. Said
Via Internet

Nuke, a Good Joke

Mr. Amaral, I had a good laugh when I ran across your food for nukes article. Very entertaining. Are you sure you do not want to go on the O' Reilly factor?

"Which means: the global arms race is over, with the United States the undisputed heavyweight champion. Other nations are not even trying to match American armed force; because they are so far behind they have no chance of catching up. The great-powers arms race, in progress for centuries, has ended with the rest of the world conceding triumph to the United States.

The article that was quoted closed with the statement, "For years to come, no other nation is likely even to try to rival American might." That does not tell me that the arms race is over. The author of the article did not, in that last sentence, say that nobody will EVER catch up to us. The last sentence of the article says, "As the global arms race ends with the US so far ahead, no other nation even tried to be America's rival." This sounds like he is talking about the arms race that we were in during the 20th century. He did not say, "This is it, there will be no more arms race or military technological improvement in the future.

What I got from the article is that if this trend continues, the other nations will be playing catch up to us for the foreseeable future, but staying far behind in our dust. Despite his saying otherwise, I got from the article that the arms race is ongoing, but with us running with a wide lead.

Now only a nuclear state, like perhaps, North Korea, has any military leverage against the winner."

Military leverage? The same kind of leverage that made their navy loose in a shoot out with the US/British trained South Korean navy? The same leverage held by the former USSR before Reagan's policies in Afghanistan ultimately lead to their collapse?

In my opinion, that New York Times article is full of hot air. "…The American military is now the strongest the world has ever known, both in absolute terms and relative to other nations;…stronger than the legions at the height of Roman power." I don't think so! The Romans had real power on their day. I wonder what kind of damage a few Russian nuclear warheads would do to the US, if they landed on US soil. The US has an undisputed power today? Not as long there are other countries armed with nuclear weapons.

At the height of Roman power, the empire still had to contend with the Germanic Tribes, which became more difficult for the Romans to engage far from their home base. Instead of expanding, they built walls to keep the "Barbarians" out instead of "conquering them" . When they came across the Scottish tribes, they met their match and built a wall.

Yes, from what I have seen and experienced, we have surpassed the Roman Legions. We not only built a wall (containment) but we got rid of the threat (USSR) that the wall was supposed to contain. The Romans did not do that and, as a result, the threat took care of them.

Not just in my opinion but based on my observations, no other nation has a military that comes near our league. European Flag officers are asking our Flag officers to "wait" and let them "Europeans" catch up to us. The Russians and Chinese are coupling their military in an attempt to match ours. Also, that article that you talked about goes on to go into factual detail on our advantage over other countries. We are not just a super power, we are a hyper-power. Even at the height of the Roman empire, there were forces that matched the Romans. However, the policies in the middle and late 90's toward the military almost did us in.

North Korea is a country slightly smaller than Mississippi, and has a total population of 22 million people including 15 million people in the age range of 15-65 years. The male population age 15-65 is estimated to be around 7 million people. The question is: can the United States beat starving North Korea if they go to war? I just want to remind the readers that the United States wasn't able to win the first Korean War in the 1950's.

If the United States was not able to win the war, then why do we still have a democratic South Korea? The Chinese and North Koreans pushed the UN forces almost back out to sea, but we pushed back and were halfway across the peninsula before we came up with a cease-fire.

I don't know why The New York Times inflated the United States victory in Iraq so much. In the end, what is amazing to me; is the fight that the Iraqis were able to give to the United States with such a small army and so little resources. I believe that the war against Iraq was the equivalent of an undisputed heavyweight champion, such as Mike Tyson or George Foreman, beating up a 5-year-old kid and afterwards having the illusion that he had a great victory.

Little resources? They had plenty of resources. We can't help it if the Iraqi's surrendered by the thousands. We can't help it if most of the Iraqi's choose to pull back. We can't help it if a few military _ families threatened by a madman _ pushed to fight on. We can't help it if our psychological warfare campaign worked to our advantage. We prevented another Mogadishu. These guys could have wrecked more damage than the Somalis could, as many liberal media was so fond of pointing out i.e. "urban warfare." If they had little resources, why was it that the Iraqi government wanted one member of each Iraqi family to go out and shoot at the range and get training? With "little resources" they should have been conserving ammo and weapons.

As I mentioned on other articles, the war against Iraq was about oil. There is no question about that anymore. The first thing that the US armed forces secured, as soon as the war started, was the oil fields. Not only in the North, but also in the South of Iraq. The oil fields were priority number one in the US agenda.

If I was a fighter pilot, I definitely would not want to fly into restricted visibility skies. You saw how the sandstorms hampered some of our military operations. Now, If they would have burned those oil fields, the smoke would have hampered air operations in the South as well as the north. Our move to secure the oil fields was to prevent smoke from blocking operations. We secured areas in Iraq that would solidify our advantages and nullify theirs.

The Wellington Effect

On May 2003, the Atlantic Monthly magazine published an article saying: "…Two German political scientists, Ralph Rotte and Christoph Schmidt, looked at 625 battles from 1600 to 1973 to determine how much influence each of several key factors has on the outcome of military engagements. Having the advantage of surprise, for instance, turns out to be a strong determinant of "battle success," adding 15 percentage points to the likelihood of victory.

The media did not cover everything in the war. The element of surprised worked very well for the US/English/Australian forces. Our forces did not do what the Iraqi leadership expected them to do. They (the Iraqi leadership) were consistently scrambling for new battle plans because we took actions that they did not think we would take.

"And whereas superior training doesn't appear to give much of a competitive edge, superior intelligence does: it has a marginal impact of 25 percent on the likelihood of victory….But Rotte and Schmidt's central finding is that although there are individual exceptions (for instance, breech-loading rifles helped Prussia to defeat Austria at the Battle of Koniggratz, in 1866), technology has generally not affected battle outcomes: surprise, morale, logistics, and intelligence are all far more important….So what is the most important factor in determining victory in battle?

The article was pointing to technology as one of the advantages that we had, but it did not point this out as the "silver bullet." It did not say, "This is the only reason we have the advantage." The US military has, from battle to battle, shown better tactics and leadership. Even in Vietnam, the Vietnamese generals admit that we won the battles but lost
the war. (In this war, winning was not an objective).

Leadership: its marginal effect is nearly 50 percent."

When Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo, on June 18, 1815, he had only an 18 percent chance of winning that day. Had the Duke of Wellington not commanded the British forces that day, Napoleon, the authors calculate, would have had a 79 percent chance of winning at Waterloo.

My dad did a combat tour in the Korean War and 6 combat tours in Vietnam. He was one of the original Navy SEALS. This is what he told me. If you have a Russian Platoon, and you shoot the officers, the soldiers will dilly dally around and not know what to do. They will be easy picking.

American enlisted personnel do in the US military what many foreign officers do in foreign militaries. When I was enlisted, my fellow enlisted and myself had enough experience to serve as officers in foreign militaries.

Also, if you shoot a US officer, the Non Commissioned Officer would be able to lead the group to battle. If that Non-Commissioned Officer gets killed, the next senior ranking person would be able to lead the group into the battle. With the US military, if the original leaders fall, a new one will step in and carry out the fight. In fact, in the first gulf war, a Marine Corps Lance Corporal _ through his detail - controlled an entire field of POW's. Iraqi officers were included in this group.

The Coming North Korean War

Why is this war inevitable? The North Korean government would be gone in no time if they give up on their nuclear arms capabilities.

The war is inevitable because the North Korean government would be gone in no time if they give up on their nuclear arms capabilities? Please expound on this explanation. Are you trying to say that if North Korea gave up their nukes, war would be inevitable?

The North Koreans could not even win a sea engagement with the South Koreans. If the North Koreans care anything about their pride, they would reverse their current actions. The "mother of all bombs" was only meant as a psychological deterrent to the Iraqis. Its physical use was meant for another country.

Washington is discredited in many ways in the international arena. They make only empty promises, they don't follow-up on their promises,

Examples of Empty promises?

And look at the mess that the US created in Afghanistan, and now in Iraq. Look at the mess that was left behind after the U.S. revolutionary war. Look at the mess that was left behind after the war of 1812. Look at the mess that was left behind after the Mexican American War. Look at the mess left behind after the American Civil War. Look at the mess left behind after the Spanish American War. Look at the mess left behind after World War One and Two. Look at the mess left behind at the wars after that.

Do you remember the mess left behind after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? This is war. Reconstruction is not going to happen overnight. You fight wars, you leave a mess, and you go through a reconstruction that takes days, months, or years. Most of the countries that the US helped reconstruct did well. Look at Japan and Western Europe.

In Iraq's case, the risk of doing nothing is greater than the risk of doing something.

Washington doesn't care even about its own people. They just passed major tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and did not give a dime or any help to 4 million long-term unemployed Americans. The government left them out in the cold. Can anyone trust such a government?

Let's get this strait. The rich people pay taxes. The unemployed, they do not have jobs, so they can't pay taxes. Now, tax cuts are passed. Time to give back some of the taxes taken from the people. How can you give back some taxes to the un-employed when they do not even pay taxes? Even if they did pay "some" tax, for argument's sake, why should they get back more than what they put in?

Do you pay more taxes than the rich man? Even if you paid a "higher" percent of your salary in taxes than a rich man paid his, is your amount physically greater than his? The rich man may have paid more in taxes in a year than both our salaries combined. He paid more taxes than we did, he deserves more of the tax money back than either one of us.

What about giving a dime to the unemployed? Giving them help? In America, you have opportunities. People come to America to take advantage of these opportunities. Success comes to those that take these opportunities. If one does not get off one's butt and take advantage of these opportunities, one deserves to stay in poverty.

These "Unemployed" are still out in the "cold" because they did not get off their butts and get back on track. I am sure that there are organizations out their willing to help people get back on track. Churches have programs that give people "get back on your feet" counseling.

I have even lived in a neighborhood of people that where on welfare. Many enjoyed getting money without having to work. They intentionally did not go out to find a job.

When our founding fathers created this country, they never intended for it to be a social/welfare state. They wanted a society that offered an opportunity for all and not a society that handed things out for free without effort on the recipient's part.

I personally do not support taking from the rich, who have earned that money, and giving it to the poor, who have not earned that money.

Are today's policies in Washington any different of North Korea's, when it comes to its starving population? I don't think so. It is a disgrace what is going on in Washington these days.

I can't speak for the North Koreans. If you are starving in America, it is because of something that you have failed to do or are not doing, or not intending to do. Each person controls his own destiny and does not need the government to wipe his butt for him.

There is no room for negotiation with North Korea; either the United States would have to accept North Korea as a nuclear power or take military action to stop it. It will be very foolish of the North Koreans to give up or negotiate away the only thing that will keep them independent.

I agree with you about not having room for negotiations with North Korea. We do not negotiate under blackmail. You talk about the world and our government's credibility. But even anti American governments condemned North Koreas Moves. Anti US Castro condemned them, Anti US Iran did so as well. The North Koreans are doing a good enough job for us building the seeds needed for us to get approval from the UN.

The nuclear plant that forms the heart of North Korea's nuclear program, is located in the town of Yongbyon in North Korea. Only 60 miles north of North Korea's capital Pyongyang, the Yongbyon nuclear complex might be the target for a United States pre-emptive attack.

The reason to go to war against Iraq was the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq was accused of having in massive quantities. Since the US has not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the US has lost the little credibility that the US had around the world before the war.

Expecting Iraq to leave the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) where they are at knowing that we were coming in, is like expecting someone to leave cocaine out on the table in the open knowing the police were coming in.

If I was Sadam, I would order the destruction or evacuation of the WMD. Why get them into "enemy hands?" What military, in its right mind, would intentionally allow the enemy to get its hands on its weapon stores?

As far as "sights" showing up as "negative" on the chemical storage. Well, if our ship was attacked by Chemicals, and we used Calcium Hypo chloride HCH to scrub the attacked area out, it to would show up as "negative." Chemical and Bio weapons residue can be decontaminated using HCH ( or similar chemicals) and elbow grease.

A genuine powerful United States would have sent the Stealth bombers to destroy the North Korean nuclear complex and proved to the world of its real power. In the same manner that Israel destroyed the Iraqi nuclear threat in the early 1980's.

Back in 1991, which country had UN inspectors drawing out and destroying WMD, Korea or Iraq? How long have we be working with Iraq on this issue? 12 years maybe? How long have we been working with Korea? Since January?

You want us to attack North Korea immediately after they start their program even when we waited years to attack Iraq? Where is the "fairness" in this? We tried diplomacy in Iraq for 12 years. We saw how that turned out when they "snubbed" our last president and kicked the inspectors out.

Also, how many countries has North Korea used nukes on? How many countries has North Korea attacked in the past 20 years? Iraq used chem weapons on its own people and invaded Kuwait.

Seems to me that the United States is afraid of taking action against the North Koreans. The new tactic being used in Washington is to say that everything that the North Korean government is saying is a mistake of translation. Suddenly to avoid war against North Korea, everything in Washington becomes a mistranslation and miscommunication.

After our success in Iraq, I remember the Koreans backing down a little. I saw this coming. I was telling people that North Korea would tone down its rhetoric after our attention shifts away from Iraq.

Is Washington having second thoughts about a confrontation with North Korea? Why the United States is so afraid of poor and starving North Korea? After all they have only a few nukes. Are these few nukes enough to scare the United States?

I can't speak for Washington. But why not keep the North Koreans on edge? During Iraqi Freedom, the US navy had ships that did exercises with the South Korean Navy. These exercises intensified. The North Koreans knew this. Panic them into spending more money on their military than what their system can handle. We force the North Koreans to outspend their capability to the point that they have a military supportable only by a western-nation-like economic engine. Sooner or later, they will buckle like the Soviets. This is a form of warfare mentioned in the book "Unrestricted Warfare." Ronald Reagan used a similar tactic on nuclear power USSR. We did it once, we can do it again.

Let's see what these warmongers in Washington are made of. Let's see if they have the guts to go to war against a country armed with nuclear weapons. Let's see if George W. Bush will reach a new low, and becomes the first American president to bring the US to the limit—a nuclear war.

Once again, I can't speak for Washington, but in my perspective, I do not see a nuclear war happening. If the U.S. were to strike another country with this type of weapon, it would not be the first time. After all, we are the only nation that dropped the atomic bomb in an act of war and we did this in the mid 40's.

Brazil, North Korea and Food for Nukes.

I have a feeling that the North Koreans will be able to keep their nuclear capabilities; after all they don't have much oil. Without oil there is no incentive to the United States
to go to war and take them over such as was the case in Iraq. But Iran should watch out, because Iran also has lots of oil.

Here is a golden opportunity for Brazil to make a deal with North Korea. This is not about a political point of view; it is strictly a business deal. The North Koreans get something from Brazil that they need: lots of food. And Brazil get something in return from North Korea that they need: the know how of building nuclear weapons.

Let me clarify one point, before anyone start thinking that I am suggesting that Brazil should adopt some obsolete communist ideology. Please don't mixture politics with trade; after all during the cold war, a capitalist country such as Brazil, still traded with the Soviet Union. This transaction will not be about ideology; this will be about a fair trade that will meet the needs of two sovereign countries.

Since January, North Korea has become the first country to withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and they have restarted a plutonium-producing reactor. Now, Brazil should also withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and make the agreement with the North Koreans: food for nukes. This will be a win/win situation for both parties.

The North Koreans will get what they need very badly: food to feed its starving population. In the other hand, Brazil will get the nuclear weapons capabilities that will provide Brazil and the investment community with a sense of security against any foreign invasions. Brazilians have a short memory, but a foreign country has invaded Brazil at least three times in the past.

How many countries have lost territory to Brazil in the past? "The Rise of the Brazilian Empire." That article also points out a U.S. presidents role in the expansion of Brazil in his role as "arbitrator."

Via Internet