Can the Beast of Terror be leashed?  Can he be fed and contained in a pen?  What happens when we turn our backs on his pen?  Will he bite us?   Will he turn and eat our children when we look away?   Find out.


Saturday--February 1, 2003—Ground Zero Plus 507
 Biting The Hand That Feeds Vigilance Over Terrorism

Cliff McKenzie
   Editor, New York City Combat Correspondent News

GROUND ZERO, New York City, Feb. 1--They say that one day the wild beast will bite the hands that feeds it.   It is the nature of wild things not to be tamed.   It is axiomatic that they will, given the chance, rip out their captor's viscera.

Can the Beast of Terror be tamed? ...or will it continue to bite the hand that feeds it?

     So it follows the Beast of Terror will snarl and flash his teeth at those who try to turn him into a civilized creature.   This knowledge often turns the civilized world away from trying to tame Beasts, for history has been cruel and indelibly reminds the civilized world that taming Beasts is not worth the carnage.  
      Some view Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Kim Jong Il of North Korea as wild untamable Beasts, better left alone as long as they are not off their leashes, not running feral into other neighborhoods.   As long as the despots are contained in their own borders, and watched so they do not break the lines between their world and the civilized world, the rest of the world's population feels safe and secure--at least, for the moment.
      So when the Wild Beast Catcher comes along and suggests driving into the wilderness to ferret out the Beast of Terror, civilization rages, beats its chest in admonishment of the Beast Catcher, shouting at him not to disturb the Sleeping Dragon who, when awakened, might hurl his noxious breath across his borders, or send the packs of wild Beasts he commands to attack the Complacent who would rather turn their backs on the Beast's presence than anger and incite him to violence.
      Why would one wake a sleeping wolverine? 
       But then there are those who know the wolverine never sleeps.   It is hungry all the time.   It thinks, eats and breathes food to expand its power.  Like the shark endlessly swimming the oceans for things to bite and chew so it can grow bigger and stronger, the wolverine only takes short cat naps with one eye opened as it plots and plans its next move, its next target of opportunity that will make it stronger, more powerful than any could imagine.

Saddam and Kim amassing weapons and Fear

       Some, a few, say Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il are like the wolverine.   That they sleep with one eye open, their minds sniffing the winds for scents of new power and inventive ways to expand their power over others so they might rule by threat and Intimidation, and build enough Fear in others that they dare not cross the borders toward their lairs for fear of unleashing the rabid madness of their intents to dominate all who challenge them.
      Europe wants to avoid wakening the Beast of Terror in Iraq and North Korea.   It wants everything to remain as it is, so long as Saddam and Kim both stay within their respective borders.   The Europeans do not want a preemptive strike on the lairs of the known Beasts of Terror..   They do not want to risk engaging the Beast of Terror's wrath.
     Time Magazine's Europe edition recently conducted an Internet poll on the issue.   The question was presented in the following words:  "Which country poses the greatest threat to world peace in 2003?"
     Three choices were given--1. North Korea, 2. Iraq, 3. The U.S.
     Despite the rumblings in North Korea over Kim Jong Il's manufacturing of nuclear weapons, or the refusal of Saddam Hussein to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors, 84.3% of the 324,366 responses chose the United States.  A meager 7.3% chose North Korea, and an almost equal amount, 8.4% elected Iraq as the most "dangerous global threat in 2003."

      The poll was not scientific.   It was conducted on the Internet where one person might spend a whole evening angrily punching in the U.S.  At the bottom of the poll was this disclaimer from Time:  "This is an unscientific informal survey for the interest and enjoyment of  users and may not be indicative of popular opinion."
      More scientific polls illustrate that the "unscientific" one conducted by Time is not far off the mark.  Below are a number of polls reported by MSNBC illustrating the opinions of Europeans on the impending U.S. led war against Iraq.

       A YouGov poll for the Sunday Times on January 26 showed 68 percent of people thought Prime Minister Tony Blair had failed to convince them of the need for war with Iraq. Some 26 percent said they were convinced Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was dangerous enough to necessitate a war.

       A CSA Institute poll published on January 23 showed 73 percent of French people were against a U.S.-led attack on Iraq, up from 66 percent in a similar poll two weeks earlier.

       An opinion poll by Germany's Forsa institute published a week ago found 69 percent of Germans wanted the country to vote against any U.N. resolution mandating war against Iraq. An Emnid poll in Der Spiegel news magazine showed 72 percent of Germans were against their troops joining any war.

       A January poll by right-of-centre newspaper El Mundo found 80 percent of Spaniards opposed the U.S. stance towards war in Iraq while another by a radio station in the same month showed only 6.6 percent thought there were reasons to go to war. No official poll has been carried out since September, when two thirds of Spaniards opposed a war.

       A poll by Swg published on January 29 showed 72.7 percent of Italians disagreed with a U.S.-led preventative war against Iraq while 18.8 percent said they would support such action.

       A Vilstrup Research poll published on January 25 showed 79 percent of Danes would oppose a U.S.-led war without a U.N. mandate while 57 percent would still oppose a war if there was a U.N. mandate.

       A poll by the publicly-funded CVVM agency in the Czech Republic on Thursday showed 67 percent were against a war with Iraq and 24 percent of respondents were in favour. The support total falls to 13 percent without a second U.N. resolution while the percentage against the war rises to 76 percent.

       A Gallup poll published on January 27 showed 82 percent of Hungarians opposed military action under any circumstances. The remaining 18 percent said they would support a war but of those, two thirds said that support would be conditional on U.N. approval.

       A TNS-OBOP survey showed 63 percent of Poles opposed sending troops to join any action against Iraq but 52 percent thought the country should give political backing to the United States for any such action.

       No official polls were available but an informal survey by Diario Digital showed opinion running almost two to one against Portugal supporting any U.S.-led action.

       But what should the pole be asking to get a true picture of the threats imposed by rogue nations who brew weapons of mass destruction with only one ultimate intent--to use them as bargaining chips for expanding power through Intimidation and Fear?
       What if the question was presented slightly differently, as  in the following manner:
       "Which nation poses the greatest global threat to the future security and safety of the Children's Children's Children?"
        I find it ironic and disheartening that nations find solace in their present security, often at the expense of their children's security.  Or their grandchildren's.
        It was just a generation and a half ago that Europe was trampled by Hitler's massing of weapons of destruction.   The world turned its head to his growing arms and his hunger for power.

     As long as he stayed inside Germany, and "promised" to not cross the line, everyone sighed in deep relief.   They went about "business as usual" and turned their heads away from the Dragon's Breath hissing and fuming as it energized its planes and tanks, and began its search for nuclear weapon manufacturing.  History has suggested numerous time that had the war gone the other way, Hitler might have been the first to use nuclear power in a destructive show of power.
       Clearly two-thirds of Europe is against the United States conducting any preemptive assaults on Iraq.   Part of that viewpoint is based on the idea that the United States has no business acting unilaterally, and angers those who believe that unanimity if more important than unilateralism.
        But is Europe looking only at the selfishness of the present, and blinding itself to the reality of the future?
        Would the Parents of Vigilance in Europe truly believe that the future security of their grandchildren and great grandchildren is put more at risk by the United States' desire to quash Saddam Hussein than allowing Saddam and his sons to continue building their weapons of mass destruction?
       Perhaps Europeans forget that Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors for one clear and obvious reason--so that he could continue to build them.
       Perhaps Europeans forget that Saddam wants one United Arabic Community of which he is the king.
       Perhaps Europeans forget the sounds of storm troopers boot heels slapping down the cobblestones of their streets, or their citizens being lined up against walls and shot.

       All because they chose to turn their heads once, not too long ago, and rather than take action to stop the Beast of Terror, chose to be Intimidated by him.
        Time does not heal all wounds.
        Time widens them.
        If Saddam and Kim are students of history and read the polls, they will see a world that has turned the United States into the Beast of Terror by popular opinion.
        The Beasts of Terror laugh at the people who vote that the U.S. is the greatest threat to world security in 2003.  They laugh because the date is humorous.  Evil intent knows no time.  It is timeless.
        The Beast of Terror will wait until the Beast Catchers are driven out of their land by Complacency.   They will wait until those who oppose war against the Beast sink back into their couches and smugly say to one another, "We sure did tell the U.S. a thing or two.  We sure did drive those imperialists out of our neighborhood.  What gall they have to march in and try to tame our Beast of Terror.  Why, we know what's best for us. Who do they think they are anyway? "

CHAOS comes with Complacency

     Child neglect?
     There are many ways to define the turning of one's head from any problem, and many justifications for its righteousness.
      But, if the truth is known, it is that Beasts bit the hands that feed them.   It is that Beasts wait at the end of their leash for their keepers to go to sleep, to lay smug in the false belief that they know more than the Beast Catcher.

America has led the charge and spilled  the blood  of its citizens to rid the world of Beasts of Terror

      America has traveled all over the world spilling its citizens blood to capture and contain Beasts of Terror.  It has led the charge against the worst of the worst, when others in distant lands have been threatened or imprisoned by the Beast.   Each time, America has buried the Beast those for whom it was liberated spat back in America's face, resentful that it saved them from the destruction of foreign assault.
      Not much has changed.
      Europe is biting today the hand that freed it.
      Hopefully, the U.S. will not turn away and let the fangs of Complacency sour its desire to keep them safe once again.

Jan. 31--The Fattest Terrorist--XXXL Complacency

©2001 - 2004,, All rights reserved -  a ((HYYPE)) design