#1
I cuncur for the reasons stated in the article. It would have been so easy to turn out all the lights in Iran and bring the country to a standstill. In doing so the UK would have made the Iranians the victims where as now they have chnged their story/fairytale at least three times already. I think that the world coming to grips with what a truly evil regime the Mullahs run is worth their discomfort. Also there is now way in hell that the Iranians can afford to have any of the Brits to become harmed or they would lose even the moonbat fringe. (except maybe Rosey)
#2
Gerald is wrong again. He speaks on behalf of a country that has lost its will and is being overtaken by Islamofascism in the name of multiculturalism.
Brits have and continue to slide into irrelevance. The Iranians use the brits for folly, as chew toys.
Posted by: Captain America ||
03/29/2007 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I think he well highlights the difference between liberals and conservative mentality in his piece.
Don't you just love the way he throws his country men overboard? Too bad for them, but doing something to help them might make life uncomfortable for him. It's not really important until the alligator threatens to eat him.
A conservative thinks that the sole purpose of a government is to protect ALL of its citizens. Allowing Iran to take these sailors will only embolden it to commit further outrages in the future.
You have to read to the bottom of the piece to really get to the difference in mindset. they won't let them go anyway, so we might as well do nothing. It's a pity about those soldiers. Ooh, look at the time, I'm off for a latte.
#5
Don't think there are many true conservatives in the once great Britain.
Posted by: Captain America ||
03/29/2007 13:07 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I'm afraid that the author (and Cyber Sarge) overestimate the value of international opinion. Frankly it doesn't amount to anything at all. Who cares what fairy tales the Iranians say about it ? It makes no difference to the real issues.
This is a poor consolation for this loss, a complete propaganda defeat as it demonstrates such fear of Iranian power.
#7
Again, Dubya includ Allies are in "FORTRESS ME" mode - the flags of Capitalism, Democracy, Amer and American Consumerism are popping up all over the ME. DUBYA/BLAIR >Its for Moud-Mullahs and aligned to choose between war or peace, PEACE = reforms wid domestic energy [versus self-implosion].
The Boston Globe the respected, liberal newspaper owned by the New York Times ran an article last week that Bush critics may wish to read carefully. It is a report on a new book that argues that President Bush has developed and is ably implementing only the third American grand strategy in our history.
The author of this book, "Surprise, Security, and the American Experience" (Harvard Press) to be released in March, is John Lewis Gaddis, the Robert A. Lovett professor of military and naval history at Yale University. The Boston Globe describes Mr. Gaddis as "the dean of Cold War studies and one of the nation's most eminent diplomatic historians." In other words, this is not some put-up job by an obscure right-wing author. This comes from the pinnacle of the liberal Ivy League academic establishment.
If you hate George W. Bush, you will hate this Boston Globe story because it makes a strong case that Mr. Bush stands in a select category with presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and James Monroe (as guided by his secretary of state, John Q. Adams) in implementing one of only three grand strategies of American foreign policy in our two-century history.
As the Globe article describes in an interview with Mr. Gaddis: "Grand strategy is the blueprint from which policy follows. It envisions a country's mission, defines its interests, and sets its priorities. Part of grand strategy's grandeur lies in its durability: A single grand strategy can shape decades, even centuries of policy."
According to this analysis, the first grand strategy by Monroe/Adams followed the British invasion of Washington and the burning of the White House in 1814. They responded to that threat by developing a policy of gaining future security through territorial expansion filling power vacuums with American pioneers before hostile powers could get in. That strategy lasted throughout the 19th and the early 20th centuries, and accounts for our continental size and historic security.
FDR's plans for the post-World War II period were the second grand strategy and gained American security by establishing free markets and self-determination in Europe as a safeguard against future European wars, while creating the United Nations and related agencies to help us manage the rest of the world and contain the Soviets. The end of the Cold War changed that and led, according to Mr. Gaddis, to President Clinton's assumption that a new grand strategy was not needed because globalization and democratization were inevitable. "Clinton said as much at one point. I think that was shallow. I think they were asleep at the switch," Mr. Gaddis observed.
That brings the professor to George W.Bush, who he describes as undergoing "one of the most surprising transformations of an underrated national leader since Prince Hal became Henry V." Clearly, Mr. Gaddis has not been a long-time admirer of Mr. Bush. But he is now.
He observes that Mr. Bush "undertook a decisive and courageous reassessment of American grand strategy following the shock of the 9/11 attacks. At his doctrine's center, Bush placed the democratization of the Middle East and the urgent need to prevent terrorists and rogue states from getting nuclear weapons. Bush also boldly rejected the constraints of an outmoded international system that was really nothing more that a snapshot of the configuration of power that existed in 1945."
It is worth noting that John Kerry and the other Democrats' central criticism of Mr. Bush the prosaic argument that he should have taken no action without U.N. approval is rejected by Mr. Gaddis as being a proposed policy that would be constrained by an "outmoded international system."
In assessing Mr. Bush's progress to date, the Boston Globe quotes Mr. Gaddis: "So far the military action in Iraq has produced a modest improvement in American and global economic conditions; an intensified dialogue within the Arab world about political reform; a withdrawal of American forces from Saudi Arabia; and an increasing nervousness on the part of the Syrian and Iranian governments as they contemplated the consequences of being surrounded by American clients or surrogates. The United States has emerged as a more powerful and purposeful actor within the international system than it had been on September 11, 2001."
In another recent article, written before the Iraqi war, Mr. Gaddis wrote: "[Bush's] grand strategy is actually looking toward the culmination of the Wilsonian project of a world safe for Democracy, even in the Middle East. And this long-term dimension of it, it seems to me, goes beyond what we've seen in the thinking of more recent administrations. It is more characteristic of the kind of thinking, say, that the Truman administration was doing at the beginning of the Cold War."
Is Mr. Bush becoming an historic world leader in the same category as FDR, as the eminent Ivy League professor argues? Or is he just a lying nitwit, as the eminent Democratic Party Chairman and Clinton fund-raiser Terry McAuliffe argues? I suspect that as this election year progresses, that may end up being the decisive debate. You can put me on the side of the professor.
#1
I'll be reading that book, for one. I firmly believe that future generations will regard GWB as a visionary, despite his current dismissal by lefty critics.
Posted by: Abu Chuck al Ameriki ||
03/29/2007 17:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I firmly believe that future generations will regard GWB as a visionary
Those were my words almost exactly when my son asked me how I felt about W after the sh*tstorm and BDS really started over Iraq.
#5
At the very start of his administration, Saturday Night Live made fun of Bush by suggesting that he had a "strategery", instead of a strategy.
Ironically, the word "strategery" may eventually be defined as a multi-dimensional form of strategy promulgated by Bush that is so superior to either linear or two-dimensional strategy that it is in a class by itself. That literally, when a plan is made based on "strategery", it will *always* defeat even the most brilliant ordinary strategists elsewhere in the world.
It is as if the rest of the world plans in 'Flatland', and George W. Bush and his planners know of and use the 3rd dimension. He always wins, but his opponents never know how he wins.
Ironically, he seems to apply this "strategery" almost exclusively to international affairs.
His domestic policy, at least for the first 3/4ths of his two terms, looked like an odd reflection of that advocated on and off by US Presidents from Grant to McKinley: that it is the duty of the Congress to run the country, and that of the President to execute their wishes--not lead.
In retrospect, it was in error, as the republican Congress horribly abused its power, and was accordingly punished for it at the polls.
An important element of this was first that until stem cells, he vetoed nothing that Congress passed. However, he frequently added a "Presidential signing statement" to each bill, indicating how he interpreted it, and intended to carry it out.
I suspect that he was trying to force Congress to assert itself more in running the government. For too long, powerful and egotistical Presidents and the bureaucracy have gained too much power at the expense of Congress.
He figured to force them to take responsibility, instead of just being a Presidential exchequer and pork factory.
Perhaps in the long run, it was part of his domestic "strategery", but one that will take many years to come to fruition. Congress does need to take more authority away from the President and the bureaucracy; we have become spoiled by having too king-like a series of Presidents.
Karl Rove seemed to be a master of "strategery" until the recent elections; but even that might be deceptive. Enigmatically, several republicans who had lost close votes were encouraged to *not* contest those votes and to gracefully concede. If I was a democrat strategist, this would make me very, very concerned.
#7
At this point, I'm far to jaded to think that it is possible for ANYTHING in the Boston Globe to be positive towards Bush without approval at the highest ranks in the Democratic party.
Dean Esmay(?) had a similar article today.
Perhaps it means that the Democrats have realized that hate-America, cuddle to despotic thugs is not a winning strategy so they are now going to hold their nose and wave the flag; at least until they win in 2008. If you start to see all of the other usual suspects and lemmings spouting this same rhetoric, then you can be sure this is a calculated strategy decision that allows them to move to the center in order to win.
Does the inherent prejudice in this statement - so institutionalized it just slips from the tongue - not bother anyone but me?
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/29/2007 20:34 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Tony Blankley is on the Right himself; I took the remark as sarcastic-- as in, "the liberal fossils at the Globe couldn't pretend to ignore this one" or some such.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
03/29/2007 20:41 Comments ||
Top||
#10
What ineptitude! FDR never developed a "grand strategy." Although he was ahead of the American people in the need to confront fascism, the fact that it took Pearl Harbor to seal it, is a testament to his lack of a sellable strategy. The Yalta - executed while US soldiers were dying - sellout speaks volumes. However, the Truman Doctrine (confrontation by means of either containment or liberation, in recognition of Churchill's apt description of the "Iron Curtain"), WAS a Grand Strategy. I argue that Teddy Roosevelt's "Strong Man" alliance system, which supported authoritanian regimes as long as they held back US enemies, was also a Grand Strategy. Further, Jimmy Carter's repudiation of both the containment and alliance with strong allies, in place of US moral disarmament and agitation for "human rights" abroad, was also a Grand Strategy, which produced the infamous Soviet winning streak of the mid to late 'seventies.
While it is true that President Bush declared a distinct doctrine, favoring US "pre-emption" of enemy armament and aggression, he saddled it with a Carter-like export of "democracy" to states where that system is believed to challenge the sovereignty of "god" and his successors ("caliphs"). But, Bush has appeared to veer to the Teddy Roosevelt Doctrine. Lately, he pushed monthly meetings between the government of Israel and Fatah elements, thus, excluding Hamas and Hizbollah. If I am right, a Fatah "Strong Man" will crush those 2 mortal enemies of the American people. I also predict that, in stark contrast to the separate agreements that Bush made with Taliban-lite and Shiite clerics in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran's Ayatollahs will hit directly when the US attacks Iran. Iran' missile capabilities will lead to a drastic escalation, and the US nuclear trigger will be pulled for the first time since World War II. An alliance will be made with professional military elements, and a Strong Man will emerge. It is my hope: there will be a bloodbath, and Ayatollah and Basij animals will be liquidated.
My "freedom" doesn't include Islamofascists. I don't want them to vote: I want them to die.
Two months ago, the Senate voted unanimously to confirm one of our most decorated generals, David Petraeus, to take command in Iraq. Gen. Petraeus promised a fundamental overhaul of U.S. strategy with a new plan that would at last correct the many mistakes we have made in this long and difficult war.
Since taking command, Gen. Petraeus has been true to his word. The result? Sectarian violence is down in Baghdad. The radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has fled. The Mahdi Army, which terrorized Baghdad last year, appears to be splintering. And the Iraqi government its spine stiffened thanks to our renewed support is taking the critical steps for political reconciliation.
Amazingly, however, just at the moment things are at last beginning to look up in Iraq, a narrow majority in Congress has decided that it's time to force our military to retreat. Rather than supporting Gen. Petraeus, they are threatening to strip him of the troops he says he needs and sabotage his strategy.
This is outrageous.
The deadline for retreat that Congress wants to impose is both arbitrary and inflexible. American troops would be forced to begin withdrawing regardless of conditions in Iraq, regardless of the recommendations of our military commanders, and regardless of what impact a hasty retreat would have on America's security and credibility in short, regardless of reality.
All of us want to bring our troops home as quickly as possible. But decisions in war should be made by our military commanders based on facts on the battlefield, not by politicians in Washington watching the polls.
There is, of course, no guarantee that Gen. Petraeus and his new strategy will succeed, but a deadline for withdrawal is a guarantee of defeat.
There is a better way. Gen. Petraeus says we should have a clear sense whether progress is occurring by the end of the summer. So let us declare a truce in the Washington political war over Iraq until then. Rather than imposing a deadline that ensures our failure, Congress should reserve judgment for now and give Gen. Petraeus and his troops a chance to succeed.
It's very hard for me to look at American Muslims, or Muslims in general, or anyone who considers themselves "liberal" or "progressive" or "humanist," who claim to stand for freedom and human rights and then attack everything America has done and tried to do in Iraq over the last four years.
The fact is that the naysayers claimed we weren't really striving for liberation. We were. They claimed we'd install a new puppet dictator. We did not. They claimed that we wouldn't really try to set up a democracy. We did. They claimed there would be no legitimate elections. The Iraqis had three national elections in a row, all certified as legitimate by international observers, not even counting the local elections that were held before that.
They claimed we'd do everything possible to get out of the country "before the next elections"--they claimed that before the 2004 elections and again before the 2006 elections. It didn't happen. Now these same people in many cases are cheering for a Congress that's trying to force us out of Iraq even though the war supporters consistently say "no, that would be morally and strategically wrong."
Time after time the naysayers have proven themselves both morally and intellectually incoherent, and yet they never have the introspection to acknowledge this.
Furthermore, anyone calling himself a "liberal" or a "humanist"--Muslim or not--is in my view faced with a stark choice:
You either sit around pretending that a vicious, murderous, fascist "insurgency" that routinely cuts people's heads off and shoots children in the face is the "legitimate voice of the Iraqi people," or you recognize that there is in Iraq a government elected by the Iraqi people working under a Constitution written entirely by Iraqis that recognizes human rights better than any in the Arab world.
No matter how many reservations you have about how it was done or how imperfectly that elected government implements the ideals expressed in that ratified Constitution.
If you take the former position you have no business calling yourself a liberal or a progressive or a humanist. If you take the latter position, then maybe you have to swallow the bitter pill that someone named George Bush, whom you don't like and maybe think is incompetent, was the instigator of something that damn well needs to be supported.
But you can't have it both ways. Indeed, by declaring the whole thing illegitimate, all you're doing is siding with the Islamophobes of the world who claim the Muslims and the Arabs are far too savage, backward, and primitive to respect things like democracy and human rights. Indeed, you're implicitly siding the the Jihadwatch crowd.
It's high time someone told you people this, whether you're Muslims or not.
The progressive, humanist position is not, and never has been, the "anti-war" position.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/29/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Grapes looked pretty good, but then...
Indeed, by declaring the whole thing illegitimate, all you're doing is siding with the Islamophobes of the world who claim the Muslims and the Arabs are far too savage, backward, and primitive to respect things like democracy and human rights. Indeed, you're implicitly siding the the Jihadwatch crowd.
Not too surprising; Dean is one of those "True Believer" types, and one of the things he truly believes (for the moment, at least) is "It's NOT the Islam, Stupid!!"
If you visit his website, be sure to click on the link (in the upper left corner) to his Editorial Policy. Dean precipitated a major crisis at Dean's World a couple weeks back when he laid down The New Law:
It is henceforth the editorial policy that if you cannot write with the following as your presumptions, you do not belong here:
1) Islam does not represent the forces of Satan or the Anti-Christ bent upon destruction of the Christian world.
2) There is no 1,400 year old "war with the West/Christianity" being waged by "The Muslims" or anyone else.
3) Islam as a religion is no more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most ancient religions.
4) Medieval, anachronistic, obscure terms like "dhimmitude" or "taqiyya" are suitable for intellectual discussion & analysis. They are not and never will be appropriate to slap in the face of everyday Muslims or their friends.
5) Muslims have no more need to prove that they can be good Americans, loyal citizens, decent people, or enemies of terrorism than anyone else does.
That is our stated editorial position. You--and this includes commenters--will work from respect for that, or you just need to leave.
Several of his regular contributors told him to stuff it, and left. I can't imagine why...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
03/29/2007 6:36 Comments ||
Top||
#3
you're implicitly siding the the Jihadwatch crowd.
So what, or for those with much more patience, your point is?
#6
But you can't have it both ways. Indeed, by declaring the whole thing illegitimate, all you're doing is siding with the Islamophobes of the world who claim the Muslims and the Arabs are far too savage, backward, and primitive to respect things like democracy and human rights. Indeed, you're implicitly siding the the Jihadwatch crowd.
It was not illegitimate; it was misguided. I once was blind but now I see. My change of opinion does not make me islamophobic it makes me suicidophobic.
I wouldn't call it "misguided". Certainly, anyone who took the magically curative powers of Western-style democracy as an article of blind faith was misguided. And that goes double for anyone who still believes with all his heart that democracy will cure what ails the Islamic world; for the evidence to date suggests that it may well not.
But it's something we had to try.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
03/29/2007 10:33 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Indeed, by declaring the whole thing illegitimate, all you're doing is siding with the Islamophobes of the world who claim the Muslims and the Arabs are far too savage, backward, and primitive to respect things like democracy and human rights. Indeed, you're implicitly siding the the Jihadwatch crowd.
This is as idiotic than telling that Geramns and Nazis couldn't respect democracy. It is idiotic because it mixes two things: race and ideology.
Arabs are not genetically unable to respcet democracy (another thing is what happens when someone has been impreganated with Arab culture) but Islam like Nazism is totally incompatible with it: idelogies who tell that there are people who have the right to enslave others and that there is a strict hierarchy between the herrensvolk are not compatible with democracy.
#9
I have to complete by saying that Arab culture because it refers to tribalism and islam is incompatible with democray so if considering Arabs as a a group then they must be unarabized for democracy being able to flourish.
#10
I see this in a slightly different light. I don't know much about Dean Esmay's past but this seems almost like one of those "coming out" pieces, as if he is giving a mea culpa and announcing to his looney liberal friends that he is not willing to side with murderous thugs just to keep the "I hate Republicans and George Bush" party going. He digs at Jihad watch because it is tough to acknowledge that the people whom you despised and felt superior to were right and you were wrong. So he acknowledges that his Americaphobia was misplaced but clings to his belief that he is more "open minded" than those people.
If my theory is correct, then I welcome him back to the world of the sane, even if he comes reluctantly, but he is wrong to shut down the discussion about Islam's compatibility with democracy. I understand his frustration about dealing with the millions of Muslims who could live in a democratic world if only.... this or if only that.... But the reality is that to be a strict follower of Islam means that you can not separate church or state and that you can not tolerate non-believers. To deny the discussion will not make that reality go away.
There are moments when I seriously wonder whether my own lazy propensity to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, is not wiser than the alternative strategy -- namely, to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them. I am thinking here of grand strategy, not of the affairs of my own little life, that cannot interest the reader.
My topic du jour will be revolutionary Iran, which found new ways to misbehave during the couple of weeks I was down with illness, adding more mud to the underlying quagmire in the Middle East. And the question in my mind is, should we even hope that anyone -- America, Israel, anyone -- will do something to stop the ayatollahs before they make the mess in neighbouring Iraq seem like a moment of springtime leisure?
More generally, we have seen the political cost the Bush administration has absorbed, for its outstanding attempt to get ahead of events in the region -- to take arms against that sea of troubles, when the base of political support for any distant military action is invariably fickle. Oscar Wilde said he could resist anything except temptation; we in the West today can endure anything except difficulty.
Leafing through my colleague George Jonas's new book, Reflections on Islam, a cherry-pick of his columns from around 9/11/01 forward, I wonder if people like him were right and I was wrong. That is to say, he favoured charging into Iraq and changing the regime, as I did. But unlike me, he favoured charging back out again after the deed was done.
An argument Mr Jonas does not dwell upon, should be added in support of his general position. It is that the American military has proved a remarkably efficient instrument in actual warfare. But the American civilian bureaucracy that followed in its train, to perform the task of reconstruction, including most crucially the training of a new Iraqi police force, and performing all the intelligence functions that would be needed against the Islamist underground, was and remains incompetent beyond mere words. Tens of billions of dollars have been sunk, in each of the four years since the Iraq invasion, into operations that have gone too frequently beyond ineptitude, into the dizzying realm of the counter-productive. In the course of which the superb military achievement has been undone.
To my view, they could not afford to fail, and they failed. And a key result of that failure, is that now we face the even greater threat of Iran, with no stomach left for the strategic and military measures that will alone cause the ayatollahs to stand down.
The utterly mischievous Russians are currently doing more than the boy-scout Americans to face down the Iranian nuclear program. President Putin, whose interests are seldom coincident with our own, has signed onto the United Nations' most recent fey wrist-slapping gesture against Iran, but immeasurably strengthened it, by halting Russian construction of the nuclear reactor at Bushehr (the first of five projected, earning Russia huge hard-currency income). According to some reports, he may even be reconsidering the open sale of sophisticated surface-to-air missiles, and the more covert supply of advanced ballistic-missile technology.
We cannot yet know the reason for the Russian volte face, which happened suddenly on March 19th. Conspiracy theorists may imagine it was the result of secret diplomacy with the U.S. (a delayed and disguised payoff for U.S. support of Russian entry into the World Trade Organization). It might only be a dispute over Iranian payments (that was cited to excuse the sudden withdrawal of 2,000 Russian workers). It is unlikely Mr Putin has only now grasped that Iran is very dangerous.
The flagrant and outrageous Iranian seizure of 15 Royal Navy personnel on patrol in the Shat al-Arab, well outside Iranian waters (we needn't waste time discussing absurd Iranian claims) is not necessarily connected with anything. The Iranians often pull stunts like that, without fully thinking through their purposes. Rather it should be taken as the latest indication of how unpredictable they are. This is, after all, a country whose president utters public fantasies about nuclear war, in the context of Shia Islamic apocalyptic hallucinations.
But even in this comparatively small matter, in which the Iranians have behaved, yet again, in defiance of all norms of international conduct, just what do the British propose to do about it? Prime Minister Blair said yesterday that efforts to obtain the sailors' release will enter a "different phase" if diplomatic negotiations fail. In other words, the British will start yelling louder.
What else is possible? It may make no sense for any politician in the West to sink himself, doing what really needs to be done now, to prevent Armageddon farther down the road. It may make more sense to let the catastrophe happen. Whenupon, pretty much everyone will be onside for doing something fairly definitive about Iran.
#1
And exactly what is this bozo suggesting for the 15 sailors?
Just let Iran keep them or kill them as they like? Don't want to sweat the small stuff?
I sorta agree on the Iraq picture. When we went in we should have:
A) Occupied the damn place, created their constitution for them ala McArthur and let them ride it the same way a child rides his first two wheeler, with Dad right there to sieze control if necessary.
or B) Go in, kick ass, leave. Rinse and repeat as necessary.
That shampoo diplomacy is what I think that the Brits should do now. "Oh, Mr. Nutjob, if our sailors are not home in 48 hrs you lose something big........okay I guess you didn't need that Navy afterall....Or Mr. Nutjob, if our sailors are not home in 48 hours you're going to lose something bigger. Rinse and repeat.
#2
AlanC,
I have been reading Warrens body of work since shortly after 9/11 and find he is one of the few sane voices coming from the "attic of North America".
An impassioned view of this weeks events would leave me in agreement that the mullahs want this story to lead the evening news, mostly because they can control it. The fuel for keeping this in the news cycle is how much outrage the weak horse west wails over its "precious blue eyed sailors" while they put on the image of "fighting cocks"... all images they have used.
The less spotlight we put on the hostages, the less stage they have. Unfortunately they understand how to feed the media bulldog.
The suggestion I prefer is for Tony to start refering to them as POW's, and let the "not in power" iranians- a large majority, start asking themselves "...uh, Rezi, when did the mullahs get us into war?" Put the iranians on hold when they call to discussion todays negotiations, and start psyops designed to scare the shit out of the populous. As one ex general said, make iran the "unluckiest place in the world" for the next couple of months.
Unfortunately, the media would rather cover the "this is what the iranian minister said this morning, but now he has changed his mind and does not speak for the mullahs this afternoon."
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
