GROUND ZERO, New York City, Mar. 6--Thomas Hobson owned a livery stable in Cambridge, England in the 16th Century.   When people came to rent a horse they would muse over which one to select, only to be challenged with what has come to be known as the Hobson’s Choice.
        That “choice” was “no choice at all.”    Thomas Hobson (1544-1631) didn’t hobble his customers with decisions.  The sign above his livery stable shouted the facts of life as Hobson saw them:  "Take the horse nearest the stable door or none at all."
        In life, politics or war, the Hobson Choice offers no alternative.   It is either "X" or nothing.  There is no alternative.   This makes the War On Terrorism a Hobson’s Choice.

     There is no alternative but to wage it.   Nine Eleven proved that truth for America.   Hitler proved it for Europe.   Kim Jong Il is proving it in Asia.  Emperor Hirohito proved it Japan.  And Saddam Hussein is living proof of it in the Middle East.
        But many nations, including former allies of America on critical issues such as war and peace, are refuting Hobson’s Choice.   They suggest there is an alternative and struggle to butt White against Black and squirm to mix the two opposing colors into some degree of gray.  They believe you can negotiate with Terrorism, and, during the negotiations, trust what the Terrorist says as truth.   (Trust me, I will disarm…but only if…)
        Ironically, most nations advocate a policy of non-negotiations with Terrorists.   Russia recently killed 90 of its citizens when it assaulted the Chechnyan Terrorists who seized the Cultural Center near Moscow and held 750 people hostage.  The Terrorists threatened to blow it up unless Russia changed its policy in Chechnya.   Russian authorities used Hobson’s Choice to deal with the situation.
       Thirty-one years ago, eleven Israeli Olympic athletes were murdered at the 1972 Olympic Village in Munich, Germany, when Israeli officials elected Hobson’s Choice over negotiating with the Terrorists.
        Despite the sweet sounds of serenity sung by those who do not face immediate threat, or have the courage to foresee it, rabid animals cannot be lured into a cage with food, soothing Voices, or a hand of peace.   They will bite the hand that tried to feed them viciously, and their venom can maim and kill.  Rabid animals that kill out of madness and perversion must be eradicated, as cancer must be cut away or it will spread to the rest of the healthy body.  One doesn’t negotiate with cancer.   Hobson’s Choice is employed.
       There is a sound reason the policy of non-negotiations with Terrorists exist.  That is, Terrorists operate under the Hobson’s Choice.  They demand satisfaction but offer no alternatives.   Suicide bombers are prime examples of the Hobson Choice.  They seek to kill the innocent without alternative.   Wanton destruction of others is their choice, as was with the 19 Nine Eleven Terrorists.
       Saddam Hussein used the Hobson's Choice against thousands of Kurds when he gassed them to death.   There were no negotiations with them, no viable alternatives sought.  He loaded up planes with lethal gas and showered his people with their deadly toxins.  He didn’t even blink.
       America has followed the Hobson's Choice in its pursuit of toppling Iraq.   In 1991 Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm as a concession for the Allies to not sweep into Baghdad and finish what it started.   For the past decade he has violated that agreement, as any Terrorist would be expected to do.   Latest intelligence reports by Colin Powell state he is still manufacturing Al-Samoud missiles while he pretends to crush a few for global show.

      Unfortunately, most of the world leaders are back-peddling on their anti-Terrorism policy.  It seems they’ve thrown Hobson out with the baby bath.  They want to negotiate with Terrorism, to “give it more time” to concede to the concessions they have already made to disarm.   One might think nations like France, Germany and Russia aren’t so much concerned with bringing Terrorism to its knees as they are to humiliating America so it will lose its power as the world's Watchdog Of Vigilance.
        France, Germany and Russia issued yesterday an 11-page letter stating they will veto any "use of force" proposal presented to the U.N. Security Council.   What happened to Hobson’s Choice?   Suddenly, we are negotiating with Terrorism!
        It makes one wonder whether Europe is on the side of Vigilance or Terrorism, working for or against Saddam Hussein.  It is as though the U.N. Security Council never unanimously voted in Resolution 1441.
        This brings up the issue of Vigilance.
         Is Vigilance a negotiable principle or a Hobson’s Choice?
        If Vigilance is negotiable, then Terrorism must also be, for the two are opposites and equals in nature—one seeks to destroy unconditionally, and the other seeks to preserve and protect unconditionally.  
        Terrorism comprises the acts of an individual, group or nation to inflict Fear, Intimidation and Complacency upon others.    It seeks to render its victims powerless, and like the rabid dog, will bite anyone or anything within striking distance for no other reason than to inflict the greatest possible pain and anguish upon them in hopes they will run, cower, stick their heads in the sand and shake while they urinate upon themselves in Fear.
         Vigilance, on the other hand, is the composition of Courage, Conviction and Right Actions for the Children's Children's Children.   It demands that one face Fear with One Percent more Courage, and to conjure the Conviction to stand tall in the shadow of Intimidation attempting to drive one away from the Right Actions that will displace the powerless of Complacency and achieve ultimate goals that favor not the self's security, but the security of the Children's Children's Children.
           Vigilance, properly employed, is not a proactive response to Terrorism.  It is a constant state of readiness, a relaxed tension of the will and spirit that recognizes the omniscient presence of the Beast of Terror, and accepts the fact that when the pressure is relaxed on the Beast, the Beast will pop to the surface and slash its fangs at the jugulars of all those Complacent enough to think his thirst for power can be sated.

       History should be enough evidence to remind all nations that Terrorists will never go away.   Despots and tyrants are born every moment of every day.   They are the weeds of humanity, seeking to choke the nubile shoots of grass to death and to take over the land with a strangle hold usually dominated by weapons of mass destruction.
         It may have all started with Cain and Able.   Someone is out there willing, ready and able to smash another's head to pulp for no other reason than the sheer glorification of their own power, totally negligent to the safety of others, and obviously unconcerned about the security of the Children or the Children's Children's Children.
          Were this not the case, we would not have locks on our doors, or police, or military, or establish moral guidelines for human behavior, or have courts and laws to mete out justice against those who violate human rights.

       Still, despite all the tons of historical facts that tell us Terrorism constantly evolves as humanity evolves, as though the burr under human beings saddles, the U.N. Security Council "bullies"--France, Germany and Russia--are tossing out the baby with the water when they deny the use of force against Saddam Hussein.
         A decade ago they rallied against him when he invaded Kuwait.   Now, they seem to be standing behind him, washing him clean of any sins and suggesting that he is no longer a Terrorist of the rabid order, and that he can be coaxed into concessions, lulled and seduced into turning over his Terror helm he has spent over two decades building.
         In a play filled with twists and turns to excite the audience's attention, the Security Council has made it appear that America is the Terrorist and Saddam Hussein the Prince of Vigilance.   Why else would Europe's power nations seek to protect him unless they decided he wasn't what America claims him to be?
         Are the nations of France, Germany and Russia then our true Sentinels of Vigilance?  Are they usurping that role by throwing their bodies between the U.S. and the Iraq issue?
         It would seem that's their intent.
         They want to negotiate with the rabid dog.  They want to mollify him with time, and to "work out a plan" for him to do what he has agreed to do but refused to do according to U.N. Resolution 1441--disarm.  They are not employing the Hobson's Choice as they did in Munich in 1972, or recently against the Chechnya Terrorists who held Russia citizens hostage at the Cultural Center just outside Moscow.

      They are allowing Saddam Hussein to pick any horse he wants from the stable, including the one farthest back from the stable door.  But each time Saddam thinks he has the right horse, he switches, delaying his ride out into the wilderness.
        Why would a rabid dog want to rush into a cage and be exterminated?  He enjoys snarling and slashing his fangs at those who threaten him, and wagging his tail lovingly at those who are deceived by his false conciliations.
     Vigilance says the rabid dog will always be rabid, and that to combat it, a constant state of protection must be maintained.   Hobson's Choice says there is no alternative to Terrorism.  You must take it out.
      Terrorism says it will use every nefarious tool at its disposal to slither and snake its way into society, to mesmerize the Complacent over and over so they think it is not rabid, just dysfunctional, just needing a slap on the hand.   Then, while the city sleeps, it attacks.   It attacks to create power, however tertiary that power may be.

      The suicide bomber has about one second of power, when he or she pushes the plungers.   Then the power evaporates.
       Saddam Hussein thrives on the power of the second.   He fills the tips of missiles with bio-chemicals, enjoying the thought in the final seconds he will unleash hell on earth.   Kim Jong Il is driven by the same insanity.
       Vigilance says these kinds of leaders are cancer.
       Vigilance employs Hobson's Choice.
       Will Vigilance win?
        Yes.
        Despite the U.N. and all attempts to make America wrong, Vigilance will win out over the long haul.   History is on Vigilance's side.

    When all is said and done, the world will right itself.   The children will be safe.   History will see to that, but the price of freedom for them may be letting the rabid dog run free in their nursery.  
        That's what the U.N. is suggesting.  They are asking the world to forget Thomas Hobson.

Mar. 5--For Whom Does The Oil Of Iraq Toil?