By Jimmy Carter
Wednesday, March 29, 2006; Page A19
During the past five years the United States has abandoned many of the nuclear arms control agreements negotiated since the administration of Dwight Eisenhower. This change in policies has sent uncertain signals to other countries, including North Korea and Iran, and may encourage technologically capable nations to choose the nuclear option. The proposed nuclear deal with India is just one more step in opening a Pandora's box of nuclear proliferation.
The only substantive commitment among nuclear-weapon states and others is the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), accepted by the five original nuclear powers and 182 other nations. Its key objective is "to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology . . . and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament." At the five-year U.N. review conference in 2005, only Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan were not participating -- three with proven arsenals.
Our government has abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and spent more than $80 billion on a doubtful effort to intercept and destroy incoming intercontinental missiles, with annual costs of about $9 billion. We have also forgone compliance with the previously binding limitation on testing nuclear weapons and developing new ones, with announced plans for earth-penetrating "bunker busters," some secret new "small" bombs, and a move toward deployment of destructive weapons in space. Another long-standing policy has been publicly reversed by our threatening first use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. These decisions have aroused negative responses from NPT signatories, including China, Russia and even our nuclear allies, whose competitive alternative is to upgrade their own capabilities without regard to arms control agreements.
Last year former defense secretary Robert McNamara summed up his concerns in Foreign Policy magazine: "I would characterize current U.S. nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous."
It must be remembered that there are no detectable efforts being made to seek confirmed reductions of almost 30,000 nuclear weapons worldwide, of which the United States possesses about 12,000, Russia 16,000, China 400, France 350, Israel 200, Britain 185, India and Pakistan 40 each -- and North Korea has sufficient enriched nuclear fuel for a half-dozen. A global holocaust is just as possible now, through mistakes or misjudgments, as it was during the depths of the Cold War.
Knowing for more than three decades of Indian leaders' nuclear ambitions, I and all other presidents included them in a consistent policy: no sales of civilian nuclear technology or uncontrolled fuel to any country that refused to sign the NPT.
There was some fanfare in announcing that India plans to import eight nuclear reactors by 2012, and that U.S. companies might win two of those reactor contracts, but this is a minuscule benefit compared with the potential costs. India may be a special case, but reasonable restraints are necessary. The five original nuclear powers have all stopped producing fissile material for weapons, and India should make the same pledge to cap its stockpile of nuclear bomb ingredients. Instead, the proposal for India would allow enough fissile material for as many as 50 weapons a year, far exceeding what is believed to be its current capacity.
So far India has only rudimentary technology for uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing, and Congress should preclude the sale of such technology to India. Former senator Sam Nunn said that the current agreement "certainly does not curb in any way the proliferation of weapons-grade nuclear material." India should also join other nuclear powers in signing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
There is no doubt that condoning avoidance of the NPT encourages the spread of nuclear weaponry. Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina and many other technologically advanced nations have chosen to abide by the NPT to gain access to foreign nuclear technology. Why should they adhere to self-restraint if India rejects the same terms? At the same time, Israel's uncontrolled and unmonitored weapons status entices neighboring leaders in Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other states to seek such armaments, for status or potential use. The world has observed that among the "axis of evil," nonnuclear Iraq was invaded and a perhaps more threatening North Korea has not been attacked.
The global threat of proliferation is real, and the destructive capability of irresponsible nations -- and perhaps even some terrorist groups -- will be enhanced by a lack of leadership among nuclear powers that are not willing to restrain themselves or certain chosen partners. Like it or not, the United States is at the forefront in making these crucial strategic decisions. A world armed with nuclear weapons could be a terrible legacy of the wrong choices.
Former president Carter, a Democrat, is founder of the Carter Center.
Posted by: john ||
03/29/2006 14:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Jim-boy... Start your education on this issue here
at Policy Review with the article Getting India Right. Then we can continue the discussion about how you have not been Prez since Reagan and its long past time you realized that factiod and shut up!
#2
You know - I used to be against the deal with India - I just don't trust India. But now that Carter has come out against it, I am starting to come around to the view that this is a good idea. Because if Carter is against it, it probably is in the American interest.
#3
Last year former defense secretary Robert McNamara summed up his concerns in Foreign Policy magazine: "I would characterize current U.S. nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous."
You know, Jimmy, I didn't think it was possible, but you came up with somebody to quote who was an even bigger scumbag then you were. And he was an expert on every charecterization he mentioned in the quote.
#4
So far India has only rudimentary technology for uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing,
Dubious assumption when one considers that India is loading each of its fast breeder reactors with one ton of plutonium and is enriching uranium to medium level (fuel for a nuclear submarine being built in Vizag).
Nothing rudimentary about that.
And India isn't requesting enrichment or reprocressing technology.. what it wants are entire reactors and fuel. The Indian enrichment plants will be on the military side and will receive nothing. Two of the plutonium reprocessing plants will be placed under IAEA safeguards.
A fissile production cap is not on the cards for India.. not for a decade at least.. when it will have accumulated enough plutonium for about 200 warheads.
Posted by: john ||
03/29/2006 19:07 Comments ||
Top||
#5
At the same time, Israel's uncontrolled and unmonitored weapons
#3
The irony of this kills. If this is how the illegals want to run their campaign, let'em. It only demonstrates and reinforces why they need to leave. Stupid people shouldnt breed. Makes me wonder if the Army didn't deploy me to the wrong theater.
#5
I resubmit my same comments from late last night -
To me this is all a no brainer. RANT ON: First, build the wall - make that fucker nice and high and anchored way deep into old terra firma. Second, plug any gaps w/combined federal law/border control and U.S. military. Next, round up all illegals and deport - I know this will be hard and unpopular - I could give a shit - these folks made a conscious decision to disrespect our laws as well as our sovereingty. They go to the end of the legal immigration line as well - no negotiation. Also, make it a federal offense to employ illegals, help illegals into the country, or coming into the country illegally. If any big U.S. city refuses to work w/the feds on this then pull their fed funding immediately. For every illegal we catch or have to deport we charge that parent country or deduct $2,000.00 for each case out of their respective aid packages - too bad vicente, keep your house in order or we will do it for you, just like you do on your own southern border - you fucking hypocrite. Including the 70,000 Irish - and I'm about as Irish in ancestry as you get. Next, a child born by illegals on U.S. soil will no longer be given automatic citizenship status - what a stupid out dated law. Finally, reduce legal immigration to the educated or professional workers from other countries. Further, this doesn't include their extended family especially their over 60 yrs old family members who immediately jump on a social security system they never paid a dime into.
We also don't need anymore cabbies or a population the size of india or china. Yes folks, Americans will do these jobs. Don't believe the b.s. that only illegals will do this type of work. We may pay a little more for legal American labor but I guarantee someone will do that job. The market always finds a way to fix itself - it just doesn't let a gap or opportunity to make money go unfilled - supply and demand, right? Or, people can get reaquainted w/mowing their own fucking lawns, staying home for a meal, or doing their own landscaping - I know too many fellow Americans who are fat asses and could prolly use the exercise anyhow (but that's another rant).
Now, if our politicians are so swayed by big business to keep their illegal addiction or if the libz want to pander for illegal votes then what the fuck did I go to Iraq for? To come back and see some illegal alien or even a naturalized citizen in my country waving the mexican/honduran/& or guatamalan flag and holding up traffic in L.A.? To see people who should not even be here protest lawful American laws and whine like little babies because we are actually going to enforce a lawful standard? I hate to say it but we've got some real pussies in office at all levels. I find it hard to believe there is even a debate about what to do. If our elected officials were truly patriots they would do the hard and unpopular things to uphold our laws and sovereingty instead of making us mexico's half-way house (who btw are the sole benficiaries of geography while every other hopeful wannabe *legal immigrant* is fucked by not being parked right south of the U.S.) and the flop house for all illegal aliens. I will not even qualify any of this with saying how much I like hispanics or how I have nothing against mexicans or whatever it is that every rino feels the need to say so that the left doesn't call them the R word - that's so lame. Our country is at a crossroads, do we follow the rule of law or the rule of man? I love my country dearly but am afraid that our elected goverment officials have become too morally weak to do the right thing in this case. RANT OFF.
#7
BRAVO!
Well said Broadhead6!
I hope this past weekend's activities will spur more action in getting these illegals dealt with and out of our country. What an eye opener last weekend was, in seeing their protests marching in OUR streets with THEIR flags.
I do think it's gotten to the point of having our military protecting our southern border.
We need to stop all of the free services rendered, they are laughing in our faces regarding how stupid we are giving them everything for free.
Posted by: Jan ||
03/29/2006 18:36 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Here's hoping their out-of-the-closet re-conquistadora strategy will be shoved right up their asses.
#11
here in San Diego - the protestors continue to cut their own throats politically. Give them another day and no politician on a national or state scale will want to be seen as soft on this
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/29/2006 22:34 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Never interrupt your "enemy" when he's busy making a mistake.
I live in Antioch, CA. Yesterday whilst running an errand I had to drive by the local high school (something I try to avoid doing religiously) and there were at least 2-3 groups of kids standing outside the school grounds waving the Mexican flag.
I wanted to stop and go back and stand across the street with an American flag and a bullhorn. The little bastards should be in class learning English - not preaching their racism to me in my own country and town.
Reminds me of the time I wanted to burn the Palestinian flag right after 9-11. Lots of people on a forum that shall remain unnamed accused me of being a hatemonger and a warmonger and having a lust for blood. I quit that particular forum (one of the moderators was even supposed to have been a guard at Gitmo) and abandoned those particular acquaintances.
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Burnin' their flag's too good for 'em. Pissin' on it would be a better metaphor.
Hollywood's film colony has had a long romance with the Left. Today's Hollywood, with the help of the "mainstream" media, regularly savages those who stand up to America's enemies.
Hollywood's earnest belief appears to be that anyone who attains show-business celebrityactor, producer, or writeris automatically possessed of more political wisdom than the rest of us. Americans have come to resent it. Radio talk-show host Laura Ingraham has written a very good book on the subject titled "Shut Up and Sing." And when no Hollywood parlor politico is within earshot, some liberal politicians have whispered (likely with a smirk) their lack of respect for show business moneybags who open their wallets and purses to the coffers of liberal and pro-Democrat causes. In some insider liberal circles, spending time at a Barbra Streisand soiree in Malibu is necessary to keep the money flowing, but not a source of smart well-thought-out political strategy.
Today's Hollywood Left is more open in its distaste for Middle American values. Michael Moore is a prime example. He is a cruder and more outwardly hateful propagandist than the Hollywood left of earlier eras.
Americans often wonder exactly why so many of Hollywood's self-anointed political sages bash America, bash this country's traditions, bash Christians, bash Western Civilization, bash corporate America, bash traditional marriage, bash anti-communists (of course), and above all bash conservatives of every stripe (including free enterprise economic advocates whose offense seems to be in believing that even people not living in Beverly Hills mansions are entitled to realize the fruits of the American Dream).
Currently, Hollywood denigrates the War on Terror [See "Hollywood Surrenders to Terrorists" by Cliff Kincaid and Roger Aronoff-AIM Report January-B], more or less in the tradition of its previous blindness to the Cold War.
What makes these people tick? Why is Hollywood, for example, so anti-religious? Why is it that films such as "The Passion of the Christ" or TV shows such as "Touched by an Angel" are the exception, not the rule?
For some on-the-ground insight, AIM turned to longtime pop recording and box office star Pat Boone.
Talking To Pat Boone
"I've thought a lot about it," he told me. Of course he moves amongst "all kinds of people who are 180 degrees from me spiritually and politically, and we get along fine." But the "underlying cause for the ultra-liberalism and humanism here is that Hollywood does not want rules. They don't want any restrictions on what they can do to make money or be successful. So obviously any religion embodies some form of rules and expectations for behavior, and even consequences, and they don't want to hear any of that." To the Left that dominates the Hollywood culture, religion "poses a tremendous threat economically, professionally, and socially [even though] it's not meant to be that," Boone explained.
Some Hollywood producers don't mind actually losing money in order to make their anti-religious, anti-patriotic statements. One noted movie critic, Michael Medved, wrote a book several years ago, Hollywood vs. America, wherein he cited movie-makers who produced films they knew were destined to be total flops at the box office, just so they can get across anti-American and anti-religious messages.
Public outrage and threatened boycotts forced NBC to cancel the pro-homosexual show, "The Book of Daniel." Unchastened by the experience, NBC struck back at Christians by scheduling for April 13the night before "Good Friday"an episode of "Will and Grace" where Britney Spears was to appear on a fictional TV network with a cooking segment called "Cruci-fixin's," to mock Christianity. That, too, was canceled due to public pressure.
As Pat Boone tells us, the Hollywood Left not only rejects religion, "but [actually] there is an antipathy to it. Not just Christianity, but Judeo-Christianity" is seen as a threat in "Tinseltown."
The Hollywood culture is such that known identified religious or political conservatives believe they must try harder to succeed or (perhaps before establishing their celebrity) stay "in the closet" about their beliefs.
Nonetheless, the dominant leftists in Hollywood insist it is they who are the "victims." For 50 years now, they have been wailing at the "evils" of the "blacklist" of the Forties and Fifties. They have produced about a dozen movies peddling the idea that Hollywood was one happy harmonious family-friendly place until those evil ignorant cowboys from the House Committee on Un-American Activities came along and persecuted innocent artists for their "political beliefs."
Communism In Hollywood
Ronald and Allis Radosh explode that myth in their book, Red Star Over Hollywood. What the committee investigated was not anyone's "political belief," but a well-organized plot by the Communist Party to take over the movie industry and place its considerable influence in the service of the Soviet Union which, in those years immediately following World War II, was gobbling up Eastern Europe. Many of our fighting men who had put their lives on the line to save Europe from Nazism found out after they returned here to civilian life that much of the territory that Adolph Hitler had conquered was instead conquered by Joseph Stalin.
Against that background, the congressional committee believed if this nation was to fight the Cold War as effectively as we fought World War II, we should know exactly what our enemy was up to right here on our soil.
Red Star Over Hollywood is fully documented and heavily footnoted. It clearly shows how the highest echelons of the Soviet Union decided as far back as the late 1920s that they would make the then-burgeoning film capital a prime target. They had learned the lesson of history that the way to undermine any society's values was not to try directly to influence its leaders (often impossible), but to convey the message to the masses through those who write its entertainment scripts and its songs.
You may never have heard of Willi Munzenberg. The German native was specifically assigned by the Soviets to plant the seeds of communism in Hollywood. As the Radoshes comment: "What better place for the Russian Revolution's promise of a classless society to take hold than in Hollywood, the capital of dreams?"
This book smashes to smithereens the poignant myth of the brave and unflinching Lillian Hellman (a Stalinist playwright), the persecuted Hollywood Ten, and the supposed contemptible rats who cooperated with the committee.
Red Star Over Hollywood documents chapter and verse the hard cold fact that every single hostile witness in those congressional hearings was either a hard-core member of the Communist Party or at the very least hip-deep in Communist discipline.
Hard-Core Reds
Just so there is no misunderstanding: These were no "parlor pinks." They were true believerspart of a group that advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. They were pivotal in the ongoing effort to insert the propaganda line of a foreign power into the movies seen by millions of us. The 1st Amendment gives them the right to propagandize to their heart's content. The committee's point was that if they were spreading propaganda on behalf of this country's enemies, the movie-goer was entitled to know that he was being lectured on behalf of that agenda. Suppose some Nazi brown-shirts had been found making our movies in those days. Does anyone doubt that Washington would have taken more than a casual interest?
The congressmen initially focused on the infamous Hollywood Ten. Those were witnesses with Communist affiliations and activities as far as the eye could see. They were writers and producers who defied the House committee, refused to answer its questions and spent some time in jail for doing so.
One of them was producer John Howard Lawson, described by the Radosh husband-and-wife team as "the top Hollywood Communist."
According to All Media Guide, Lawson "began writing numerous plays, most of them promoting Marxism." In yet another book, the 1998 volume Hollywood Party, author Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley quotes the producer as saying, "As for myself, I do not hesitate to say that it is my aim to present the Communist position and to do so in a most specific manner."
The Radosh book cites as an example of Lawson's work the 1943 film "Action in the North Atlantic," which the authors describe as "a unique propaganda effort" on behalf of the Communist-run union that represented sailors on the East Coast, Joe Curran's Maritime Union-CIO."
The film also portrays the Soviet Union in a most favorable light. Lawson is described as using the film as an "opportunity" to "show support for the Party," and also it "implies that in every sense the Soviet Union was America's most noble and reliable ally"
Toward the end, Soviet planes arrive on the scene just in time to save an American vessel from Nazi dive-bombers. Then an American says of the Soviet planes, "They're ours!" as a close-up shows the Red-star insignia on the fuselage. The vessel arrives on shore to the cheers of Russian men and women yelling, "Comrade! Comrade!" The American sailor responds in kind.
The Communist Line
The movie followed the twofold Communist Party line of that era. First, make Americans forget that only a short time earlier, the Soviet Union had helped bring on World War II by collaborating with Hitler in the first place. Secondly, soften up Americans for the postwar era when Stalin would make his move to swallow the countries of Eastern Europe and arm the Chinese Communists. Ron and Allis Radosh describe "Action in the North Atlantic" as "unique" in the sense that it is "a perfect representation of the wartime Party line; patriotic and pro-Soviet at the same time."
John Howard Lawson, who beamed that "soft" propaganda into theatres from coast-to-coast, testified before the House Committee on Un-American Activities on October 27, 1947 (starting on page 290 of the transcript). He was disruptive, shouted defiance at the committee and was ejected from the hearing room. Committee investigator Louis Russell cited 34 instances of Communist activities on Lawson's part, including his Communist party Card No. 47275.
The Hollywood Ten
Similar defiance marked the testimony of the others in the Hollywood Ten. And today it is an article of faith in Hollywood that the most dastardly evil that befell film-land was "the blacklist," i.e., actors and directors who had problems finding work. We are asked to believe that nobody was guilty and those who were exposed were persecuted for their "political beliefs." Even the popular TV series "Touched by an Angel" bought into that line in a 1997 episode. Communism, of course, was not a "political belief," but was in fact a conspiracy aimed at bringing down the United States. Studio moguls did not deny Communists jobs merely because of "political beliefs." They simply realized many Americans did not want to feed America's enemies at the box office. It was a business decision.
The real blacklisttotally mean-spiritedhas been directed against those in Hollywood who cooperated with the Un-American Activities Committee's efforts to root out Communists.
Take producer Elia Kazan, for example. He told the House committee on April 10, 1952 that he had joined the Communist Party in the mid-Thirties, explaining he had been motivated by the threat of Hitler and sympathy for the poor. In his testimony, Kazanby then a fierce anti-Communist named eight others who were in the Party with him and suggested they shared his own humanitarian motivations for joining. This charitable explanation won him no points from the Hollywood Left. He took out an ad in the New York Times urging others who had seen the "conspiracy" from the inside to join him in coming forward. That drove the Hollywood culture over the top. Kazan heard that Communist Party meetings were held to isolate Kazan in the show business community. The Communist Daily Worker accused him of "belly-crawling."
But that did not deter him from producing some widely acclaimed motion pictures, most notably "On the Waterfront," which glorified whistleblowers against the forces of evil.
Ultimately, due to friends he had in Hollywood and despite the many others who had turned their backs on him, Kazan finally received a well-deserved Lifetime Achievement Award on Oscar night in 1999. Even then, the venom reappeared not only among aging Stalinists, but in the liberal mainstream media. When Kazan died in 2003, Allan H. Ryskind in Human Events cited Maureen Dowd (New York Times), Sharon Waxman (Washington Post), and Robert Koehler (Los Angeles Times) as among those who supported the charge that Kazan had behaved badly.
Other anti-Communists in Hollywood have suffered for their "apostasy," some post-humously. Years after his death, a monument to actor Robert Taylor was removed precisely because he "named names."
Today's Hollywood blacklist targets conservatives. It is not written down anywhere. But it's there. As Pat Boone told AIM in our interview, "[T]here is sort of the unspokenbut very realwish that anybody who subscribes to these ancient Judeo-Christian concepts would get out of Hollywood."
The very fact that, as the entertainer says, "It's not something that somebody has sat down and written out," arguably makes it all the more insidious. He adds, "It's just sort of a collective recognition of certain people that are not 'in'[who] are not welcome in the circles of those who feel that there are no restrictions on their behavior." Those who are "openly committed to and .vocal about moral precepts or conservative political ideas" are considered outsiders.
From other credible sources, I have heardbut for obvious reasons cannot confirmthat Hollywood workers in all parts of the film industry who are political conservatives and/or are religious people meet in private. Nothing formal. No minutes are kept. No one takes any names. There are probably no dues. All they do is meet and offer each other moral support. That reflects a fear of making Hollywood's informal "blacklist."
The Pat Boone Case
Pat Boone believes he has at times been targeted by that informal list. He cites an example:
"Even a movie like Robert Wise's 'Sand Pebbles,' a role that Steve McQueen played, and of course, he did it beautifully. But I was up for that role, and Robert Wise, when I was proposed by a casting directorI was perfect for that role[Wise] said, 'No, I don't want a singer. I want an actor.' Well, I had been in the top ten [at the] box office, and I think I had proven that I could act." Boone saw "a certain disdainful view of me as a singer, a guy with a wife and four kids, and pretty straight-laced if not totally square."
The film capital has tried to use Pat Boone's clean-cut image against him, and to mock traditional values. He says "the last half dozen" roles that he had been offered "would have caused me to portray a Pat Boone-like persona preacher, a husband, a citizen who on the surface lives like I do, and then it comes out that he's a hypocrite, a pedophile, an abuser. In other words, they want me to play those roles because it would have been tremendously effective." Of course, he turned down the roles.
Another point: The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, which restricts citizen groups from advertising their views within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, benefits Hollywood and the media, which are exempt. Any such ad could incur a stiff fine. The intent of the law is that such advertising should be the exclusive responsibility of the campaign of the candidate supported by the ad. So Pat Boone believes left-tilting propaganda TV shows such as "Commander-in-Chief" and "West Wing" be counted as "in-kind" contributions to the Democratic National Committee.
"'Commander-in-Chief,' recognized by many as free advertising for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, comes off as "suspicious" in that regard, says Boone, though he allows as how the TV show is "beautifully acted, written, and portrayed." That, of course, makes it all the more effective.
From the Cold War era right up to the present terrorist threat, Hollywood has had a curious inclination to soft-pedal the offenses of America's enemies. One can cite the 1975 Academy Awards Night, with its gloating rhetoric about how "in a few days" anti-Communist South Vietnam would be "liberated" by Communist North Vietnam. There was Hollywood's sympathy for the Communist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua in the Eighties. Actor Ed Asner flew south of the border in 1990 to celebrate the anticipated Sandinista victor in Nicaragua's election. He was to be disappointed. The Nicaraguan people elected the pro-freedom forces. And then today, Michael Moore produces movies that viciously attack America and excuseif not supportour enemies.
To this day, Hollywood still clings to the myth of martyrdom on the Lefta Left that defended Communism and today soft-pedals the terrorist threatas Billingsley put it"while earning, substantial fortunes in the very country they attacked as repressive and fascist." In Hollywood's land of dreams, as author Richard Grenier once said, "Capitalism is evil except for the three-picture deal with Paramount, the Malibu mansion, the swimming pool, the tennis court, and the Mercedes Benz."
To which Billingsley adds, "Or, as Marx himself might have framed it: From each according to his credulity, to each according to his greed."
Wes Vernon is a Washington-based writer & broadcast journalist.
#1
When conservatives learn to act, paint, sing, and play musical instruments, then entertainers will be less liberal. And Pat Boone's a great guy, but tell the truth, who's version of Tutti Frutti do you want to hear?
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.
