Via Nutcote, The Memory Hole's link to a list of companies a German newspaper identifies as having helped Iraq towards building WMD , and what appears to be a genuine Iraqi blog.

This Washington Post story on the American role in the Iraqi weapons buildup made it to the top of the blogdex list of most linked to pages today. I did notice a sarcastic comment at Buzzflash.com about the story being old, but most of the takes seem to be positive - although the story is old news. I personally think it's a great story which deserves to be read more. Maybe our newspapers should try sneaking more history in.

One or two of the readers who have passed through here may wonder why I call this blog "The Art of Peace". I'm not a pacifist, I don't only write about war and peace, and even the art needs a little sprucing up - I have some plans for the future in that regard.

One reason is that I believe peace is an art, requiring creativity and thought. It would be much simpler if one country could simply declare peace on another. You know, one country is steathily trying to do something horrible, then WHAM! a surprise declaration of peace, and they have peace whether they like it or not.

As a general rule peace requires thought and effort on all sides. A serious global peace also requires a method of dealing with those who not only can't or won't work for peace, but actively work for war.

The Romans, therefore, foreseeing evils while they were yet far off, always provided against them, and never suffered them to take their course for the sake of avoiding war; since they knew that war is not so to be avoided, but is only postponed to the advantage of the other side.

-- From Machiavelli's "The Prince"

According to this CNN report, North Korea has violated the agreement ending the Korean war by bringing light machine guns into the demilitarized zone. I believe our current course of trying to restrain North Korea by threats - or verbal statements and demands of any sort - is a failure. We must accept that they are either extremely desperate or extremely reckless. None of our alternatives for dealing with this situation is palatable.

One alterternative, which will understandably outrage many, is to give in, to subsidize the failed economy of the North Koreans in exchange for new verifiable protocols to prevent the development and sale of weapons of mass destruction. Of course their word is crap, we believe nothing not verified. Even so, this is outrageous. Can all the other nations developing such weapons get a similar deal? Should some not doing so start? The only glimmer of hope for this approach is that it worked with the Soviet Union. Through decades of grain sales they worked to spread communism, making only cosmetic concessions in exchange for aid. The leaders did not jeprodize their positions through war - nor through democratic reform. But somewhere during the process the pretense that the United States was the real enemy faltered. The only other thing to be said for this insane course of action is - look at the alternative.

The South Koreans have just elected a liberal government that wants to work more closely with the North. Do we tell them, "Sorry guys, we're pretty sure the North is preparing for war and giving them more time will only benefit them. Either you do this our way or we bring all our troops home so they don't suffer the consequences of a better prepared enemy?"

Some might actually like the latter course at first, but the most likely consequence is a second Korean war.

How about going on as we are now, trying to contain them? Assume for the moment they are rational in the same way Saddam seems to be - clever in a thuggish way at maintaining power at any price. If the aid we are giving them now is sufficient to keep them in power and prevent internal revolution, they probably won't start a war. Otherwise they almost certainly will.

I really would like to hear some better options here.

Via an anonymous comment on Little Green Footballs, Martin Kramer is a critic of Middle Eastern studies who thinks most students of the Arab world are much too complacent.

I saw it first in this Washington Times article. Is Senator Byrd really as bad as Lott? The NAACP is on record as critical of Mr. Byrd, only asking why the two weren't linked together by Republicans years ago. I looked at the NAACP Washington Bureau report card, it gives Byrd a C (79%) and Lott an F (12%). Then again, Lott didn't get taken down for how he voted as much as what he said.

Via Binkley whose editorial stance I don't agree with, Frontpage magazine's article on Saudi steps to acquire nuclear weapons.

A willingness to talk about the problems in Saudi Arabia seems to be seen on the right more than the left, though not in the Bush wing of the party. Dean Esmay of Dean's World says he first started seeing it on left wing sites, and doesn't see it the way I do.

I can actually see a semi legitimate reason why Bush wouldn't want to talk about it. What if criticism of the Saudi government increases anti American feelings in Saudi Arabia, and makes the situation of the government more precarious? Just possibly he has a good reason for not discussing the problem publically, but I think the rest of us have to, even though the Saudi's get upset by unfavorable coverage in the press too.

There have been many important - and some silly - things said about the role of poverty in contributing to terrorism. Now let's talk about what circumstances make wealth contribute to terrorism. One of the unique things about the Saudi problem is that many rich people seem to be acting directly contrary to their own interests, and contributing to forces which denounce the government that protects them, forces which would almost certainly be less favorable to their richest supporters if they actually obtained power. Many of them seem to be people who did nothing to create their own wealth, and do little to preserve and maintain it. Perhaps this contributes to a desire to give their lives purpose. Unfortunately this desire seems to take a misguided form in some.

Change must come from within, and I think many Saudi's are aware of this. As the Saudi welfare state is collapsing, many who are forced to work will eventually come to take pride in their own achievements. Perhaps the rest of the world can help - although it would be easier if we had an Organization of Oil Importing Nations which could act to reduce our dependence on imported oil when a nudge in the right direction was necessary.

Meanwhile, there's plenty of ugly hate to be found on the Blogosphere. Fair enough - only censorship keeps some of them from saying the same things about us. All the same, perhaps we would be better advised to understand the problem, and see what if anything we can contribute to the solution, and failing that what we can do to insulate ourselves from the consequences.

Non kneejerk politics are unusual enough to be interesting. It's always worth a look when the Republicans are defending the consumers against moneyed interests - and principled critics take note. Visit The Looking Glass to see the Republicans take on big pharmaceutical companies. Where are the Democrats?

Via Eschaton, some information about Washington Times assistant national editor Robert Stacy McCain from Signorile. The reason I find this so interesting is that the League of the South is opposed to the war in Iraq and doesn't like Bush. This may give those of us with doubts about the war pause for thought, but also shows the potential for infighting on the right.

The latest Alan Reynolds commentary in the Washington Times is a Trent Lott story with a difference. Mr. Reynolds want to talk about the difference between "states' rights" and "Federalism".:

When he researched his family background, Mr. Eubanks "found the words 'states' rights' and 'illegal encroachment by the federal government' used in place of 'segregation' and 'integration.'" That comment is quite correct, yet it troubles me for two reasons. As a college student in the early 1960s, I was passionately opposed to the military draft and just as passionately in favor of the Rev. Martin Luther King's dream of treating people as individuals, not as members of arbitrary categories. On the other hand, I was and still am a big fan of decentralized government, otherwise known as federalism or devolution.

His words are worth thinking about, but I think several points bear more emphasis. First, any effort to limit the power of the Federal government will always draw support from those still fighting the civil war, and it is a rare politician who will resist subtly shifting his emphasis to draw more votes if he can do so without alienating anyone else. Much of his case is made by discussing Federal programs that were or were considered by some failures - while ignoring failed programs and initiatives of states. Most important perhaps is the desire to have it both ways. Oddly enough, most of the states where they complain about the Federal government get more money from the Federal government than their citizens pay back in taxes. This is the latest study from the tax foundation. Via Andy X of In the Land of the Blind who left the link in a comment on Atrios's Eschaton.