Rest of Master's editorial, for educational and research purposes, blah blah blah, the juicy stuff is at the end:

We can allow ourselves the luxury of overconfidence and arrogance, as long we have no intention of deploying our forces in another conflict with the scope of a Desert Storm. Yet, the present administration acts as though it could and would.

NewsMax.com, September 16, 2000
'October Surprise' Could Provoke War With Russia

The prospect of a nuclear war with Russia loomed larger as the result of two little-noticed events:

·Administration saber-rattling evident in the sudden beefing up of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, which the Clinton administration admits is partially due to U.S. alleged fears that Saddam Hussein might attack Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.

·Russia's announcement that it plans to resume regular commercial flights to Baghdad in spite of the U.N. air embargo on that nation.

As reported this week in NewsMax.com, observers fear that the administration is gearing up for a possible October surprise attack on Iraq.

"Agence France Press reports the United States is flying scores of warplanes and thousands of support troops to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey as part of a scheduled rotation of forces that coincides with heightened concern about Iraq, Pentagon officials said Tuesday," NewsMax.com said.

"The forces, which began moving into the region in late August, will temporarily overlap with forces in those countries that are being sent home after a 90-day tour," the officials said.

Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said the current rotation was "fairly standard" and that there were no plans to increase the size of the U.S. force in the region.

"Now, I will tell you that we obviously watch Iraq very, very closely, but particularly at this time of year, because August, September and October tend to be the times when Saddam Hussein historically has either decided to attack his neighbors or attack his own people," Bacon said.

What worries many observers is the danger of a U.S. bombing raid on Baghdad. Russian planes could be destroyed and passengers killed, setting off an explosive confrontation with Moscow that could quickly escalate into war.

Prior to its invasion of Kuwait, the PLO conducted espionage in Kuwait and gathered valuable information about Kuwaiti defenses for Iraq. Over the weekend, the PLO and Israel went back to the bargaining table, but it appears that both sides are deadlocked and headed for a confrontation.

Reuters, September 17, 2000
Arafat warns of dangerous crisis in peace process

JERUSALEM (Reuters) -- Palestinian President Yasser Arafat has warned of a dangerous crisis in peacemaking with Israel as a new round of talks resumed on Sunday.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak was also downbeat in a terse statement issued after negotiators from both sides kicked off the talks in Jerusalem expected to last four to five weeks.

The key issue of Jerusalem and control over its holy places continued to cast a shadow over any hopes for an accord before Barak has to contend with a largely hostile parliament -- eyeing early elections -- at the end of summer recess in late October.

"We tell the co-sponsors of the peace process and the entire international community, 'Yes, we are for a just peace, but we are not for any peace -- and not at any price,"' Arafat said in the statement.

The rhetoric and the pressure for conflict are building. America has a lame duck President and a severely weakened military. Saddam knows that if Bush wins the election, his window of opportunity will be permanently closed. Yet, in the background, PLO leader Arafat, Saddam's long time friend and ally may already possess three nuclear weapons, as part of his large arsenal of weapons of destruction.

Also, the Syrians and Egyptians are putting pressure on Israel to concede unilaterally to Arafat's demands. The Syrians posses a huge cache of arms and equipment sufficient to arm 7 full divisions plus Korean ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Armed by America, the Egyptians have a modern military capability that could present Israel with a serious threat.

Is Israel watching this with casual regard?

World Tribune, September 15, 2000
Israel Deploys Missiles On Border With Lebanon

TEL AVIV - Israel announced the successful test of its Arrow anti-ballistic missile Thursday, as Lebanese military sources said Israel had deployed surface-to-air missiles and on its border with Lebanon.

The sources said the weaponry included a launching pad for four surface-to-air missiles pointing towards Lebanon. They said this appeared to be part of a new defense line following Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon on May 22.

The Arrow missile, designed to intercept incoming missiles between ten and forty kilometers above the ground, is jointly funded by Israel and the United States.

Israel's military buildup on the border also includes construction of new infrastructure and roads near the Shebaa plateau as well as the expansion of established positions.

The new 20 kilometer defense line stretches from the foot of Mount Hermon and the Shebaa plateau to opposite the Lebanese village of Wazzani. The Israeli army is expanding its position at Hammari, 1.5 kilometers west of Wazzani.

On Wednesday, tank carriers, including nine Merkava tanks and five trucks loaded with ammunition were deployed near Shebaa.

It is obvious where Israel views its newest threat for now and it is taking precautionary measures in addition the new American arms and personnel flooding into the Middle East.

During Desert Storm, Saddam tried to bring the Arabs together for a Holy Jihad against the West. He failed. But Arafat's claim on the holy Muslim sites in Jerusalem could muster the support of the Arab world and should Israel refuse to concede to his demands war is certain.

Unlike Desert Storm, which was preceded by months of planning during Desert Shield, a battle in the Middle East now will be fast, violent and bloody and American troops on the front line stand to take heavy losses.

If the Arabs can inflict heavy casualties upon the American forces, regardless of their own losses, the result could be to their advantage.

Likewise, our government has been steadily warning us that we are "overdue" for a terrorist attack. If America strikes Baghdad or any other Arab city with a massive air attack, the result could be terrorist retaliation against an American city, which most likely would be New York given its large population of American Jews.

Assuming they do all this to us, and that things go badly for us, what could happen next? To answer this question, let's look back in history to the failed military policies of another President.

During the Vietnam War, President Johnson hunkered in the White House with what has been described as a "bunker mentality." America was being torn apart as people died needless deaths in a far away land. Rather than give the military a clear mandate to win as they saw fit, Johnson blinded himself to the furor that sweeping across the country and personally authorized each and every bombing mission. The result was that American's watched their children die because of Johnson's blindness to what was happening around him and his mania for control.

If America finds itself once again in a similar predicament, a great furor will rise across the land, especially when the optical illusion of our military readiness is stripped away. Then, we will see members of the congress and the senate (Republicans and Democrats alike) demanding Clinton resign or face impeachment on the nightly new programs.

Clinton has been down that road once already, and knows that he might not be so fortunate the second time around especially without the support of his own party. With things going badly for him at this point, this is when things could take a serious turn for the worse.

The End of Our Constitution
Under the provisions of the Emergency War Powers Act and various other laws and Presidential Orders, the President can declare martial law and suspend the constitution for a period of 90 days under the guise of a national emergency. Then military can then be put in charge of the country and be accountable only to the president.

It is feasible that the congress and the senate could be suspended or disbanded by force and face possible arrest on charges of sedition if they attempt to oppose martial law. Additionally, the present elections would be cancelled. At this point, Clinton would be in a position relinquish America's sovereignty to the United Nations which many argue is exactly what he would do.

"Can't do this you say. Our laws are supreme in our land," you say." Not exactly! We've already given up a part of our sovereignty to join the World Trade Organization a move supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. One reason the WTO has created such a furor amongst some Americans is that hard won American environmental laws were overturned because America agreed that WTO authority in these matter supercedes that of our own.

If we become embroiled in a bloody war in the Middle East and then loose our sovereignty to the United Nations, it will split our country down the middle.

There will be those who believe that relinquishing our sovereignty to the United Nations will be in the best interests of America and the world. Others will feel betrayed. They will demand action and they will want their voices to be heard.

This is when the Blackhawk Helicopters will begin landing on the cul-de-sacs of America with Justice Department SWAT Teams or paid U.N. mercenary Peacekeepers to prevent a civil war from tearing America apart, as its economic and political position in the world slips away into the annals of history.

All things are possible.