http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7640263.stm
'Ms Kakar, who was reported to be in her early 40s and had six children, was one of the most high-profile women in the country.
She has figured prominently in the national and international media, partly due to a famous episode in which she killed three would-be assassins in a shoot-out - although she said her everyday life involved tackling theft, fights and murders.
Ms Kakar joined Kandahar's police force in 1982, after her father and brothers were also police officers.'
'...In June, another woman police officer was gunned down in Herat province in a killing believed to have been the first of its kind.'
I don't want to think like this, and I've resisted stoutly. But it does seem to me that for fundamentalist Islam, there is no problem murder can't solve. Koran forbids women working and doing man stuff? Murder any women who are presumptuous enough to ignore the Koran. I can't see any way that an accomodation can be made between them and us. I've tried, but I can't see it.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
A small exercise in Logic
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/09/pakistani_military_f.php
'The Taliban, al Qaeda, and allied terrorist groups have established 157 training camps and more than 400 support locations in the tribal areas and the Northwest Frontier Province, US intelligence officials have told The Long War Journal.'
Add this:
'The Pakistani military said it had direct orders to "open fire" on any US forces attempting to violate Pakistan's borders.'
What can we deduce from this? The Pakistani government insists that every inch of the FATA/NWFP is part of Pakistan, and that it has soveriegn power over it. The FATA/NWFP is bulging with armies and terrorist groups attacking Afghanistan and planning attacks around the world. Ergo, persons under the protection of the Pakistani government are invading Afghanistan and planning terrorist ops, which makes the Pakistani government collectively responsible.
Question: what will it take to persuade the governments of Europe and North America to hold Pakistan properly accountable for its actions in Afghanistan, Kashmir and India?
For how long can Pakistan get away with this clumsy sleight of hand?
'The Taliban, al Qaeda, and allied terrorist groups have established 157 training camps and more than 400 support locations in the tribal areas and the Northwest Frontier Province, US intelligence officials have told The Long War Journal.'
Add this:
'The Pakistani military said it had direct orders to "open fire" on any US forces attempting to violate Pakistan's borders.'
What can we deduce from this? The Pakistani government insists that every inch of the FATA/NWFP is part of Pakistan, and that it has soveriegn power over it. The FATA/NWFP is bulging with armies and terrorist groups attacking Afghanistan and planning attacks around the world. Ergo, persons under the protection of the Pakistani government are invading Afghanistan and planning terrorist ops, which makes the Pakistani government collectively responsible.
Question: what will it take to persuade the governments of Europe and North America to hold Pakistan properly accountable for its actions in Afghanistan, Kashmir and India?
For how long can Pakistan get away with this clumsy sleight of hand?
Share traders discovered trading shares shock
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7634641.stm
'The Archbishop of York has called share traders who cashed in on falling prices "bank robbers and asset strippers".'
You can't turn around these days without Archbishop Sentamu sounding off about something. I don't know how much he knows about money markets, but I'm guessing its less than me. Share traders cashing in on falling prices is called 'The Stock Market'. Its like accusing the guys at Smithfields of cutting up animals. You know, its what they do for a living. I really wish that the Archbishops of Britain were as active in their Christian prosyletizing as they are in patrolling the rest of this countries activities. If you are going to make stupid statements, at least let them fall in the area of your specific competence.
I realise that brings my specific competence into question- but I'm not willing to give up my soap box that easily.
'The Archbishop of York has called share traders who cashed in on falling prices "bank robbers and asset strippers".'
You can't turn around these days without Archbishop Sentamu sounding off about something. I don't know how much he knows about money markets, but I'm guessing its less than me. Share traders cashing in on falling prices is called 'The Stock Market'. Its like accusing the guys at Smithfields of cutting up animals. You know, its what they do for a living. I really wish that the Archbishops of Britain were as active in their Christian prosyletizing as they are in patrolling the rest of this countries activities. If you are going to make stupid statements, at least let them fall in the area of your specific competence.
I realise that brings my specific competence into question- but I'm not willing to give up my soap box that easily.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
And you are going to do what about that?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7626744.stm
'Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has said he will not allow Pakistan's territory to be violated by terrorists or foreign powers fighting them.
The newly elected president vowed instead to "root out terrorism and extremism wherever and whenever they may rear their ugly heads".'
But can he turn those fine words into stirring deeds?
If he can, he will be the first person in history to do so. The North West Frontier province has never really belonged to anybodies country- just to itself. In fact even that is not really accurate. Every inch of the North West Frontier province is the fiefdom of some tribe or other, perhaps a family even. It is an enormous patchwork of tiny fiefdoms, and to claim sovereignty to that patchwork is largely an empty exercise in self-aggrandizement. Occasionally the mountain tribes agreed to not annoy and attack the lowland folk, but they certainly never accepted the existence of purely theoretical things like 'Pakistan' and 'Afghanistan'.
For Mr 10 Percent to claim that the people in the mountains are as Pakistani as the folk in Islamabad is laughable. They won't oblige him. He is creating for himself a monumental hostage to fortune. Pakistan has quite a large army, but nothing like large enough to pacify the whole NWFP by force. I don't think the US army is that big. Of course, Mr 10 Percent is so macho that it must be physically painful to admit that he is in a no-win situation in NWFP. The guys in the hills are well enough armed to make a Pakistani army takeover a pipe dream, and if the Pakistanis don't take the matter in hand the US military will do the job for him, at least to the extent of nullifying the cross border capabilities.
Both will make him look like a big wussy. But hey, guy, thats the job you took! Bet it doesn't look like such a fab dealio now huh?
'Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has said he will not allow Pakistan's territory to be violated by terrorists or foreign powers fighting them.
The newly elected president vowed instead to "root out terrorism and extremism wherever and whenever they may rear their ugly heads".'
But can he turn those fine words into stirring deeds?
If he can, he will be the first person in history to do so. The North West Frontier province has never really belonged to anybodies country- just to itself. In fact even that is not really accurate. Every inch of the North West Frontier province is the fiefdom of some tribe or other, perhaps a family even. It is an enormous patchwork of tiny fiefdoms, and to claim sovereignty to that patchwork is largely an empty exercise in self-aggrandizement. Occasionally the mountain tribes agreed to not annoy and attack the lowland folk, but they certainly never accepted the existence of purely theoretical things like 'Pakistan' and 'Afghanistan'.
For Mr 10 Percent to claim that the people in the mountains are as Pakistani as the folk in Islamabad is laughable. They won't oblige him. He is creating for himself a monumental hostage to fortune. Pakistan has quite a large army, but nothing like large enough to pacify the whole NWFP by force. I don't think the US army is that big. Of course, Mr 10 Percent is so macho that it must be physically painful to admit that he is in a no-win situation in NWFP. The guys in the hills are well enough armed to make a Pakistani army takeover a pipe dream, and if the Pakistanis don't take the matter in hand the US military will do the job for him, at least to the extent of nullifying the cross border capabilities.
Both will make him look like a big wussy. But hey, guy, thats the job you took! Bet it doesn't look like such a fab dealio now huh?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
She's got into ma subconscious!
Is he talking about Sarah Palin?
Only if you have a mind to think so. Doesn't sound it like me. But then I just read this, and I think Barack has been dreaming about Ms Palin...
Do they REALLY want Obama to win?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/09/2360240.htm?section=world [Hat Tip:Instapundit]
'US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may be struggling to nudge ahead of his Republican rival in polls at home, but people across the world want him in the White House, a BBC poll said.
All 22 countries covered in the poll would prefer to see Senator Obama elected US president ahead of Republican John McCain.'
I imagine its true in most US presidential elections- people in many countries outside the US form a view about who they want to see in the White House. But it is unique in my experience that a candidate get this kind of lopsided support. Lets face it, if the world voted, McCain wouldn't lose- he'd be utterly wiped out. And whats funny is, many of the countries in Europe and round the world slathering over Mr Obama would NEVER elect a black man. Or a gypsy. Or a Turk. Or a Pakistani. Or a Chinaman. Or a Moroccan.
So why exactly do they like Mr Obama? Would Mr Obama win a German election? Would he win in Italy, or France, or Spain? Honest commentators would say no, resoundingly. So why do they want Mr Obama to win an American election so much? Perhaps in their secret dead-of-night fantasies, they believe Mr Obama might turn America into a European nation- Godless, spineless, military-less, childless, 'inclusive', gay-loving, selfish, hedonistic and nihilistic. Maybe they think he can dictate all those things to America, and they have to do it because he's the President.
I really don't think they've thought through the whole Barack Obama thing. If America elects him, whither the argument that the US is the most racist nation in the world, where blacks have no chance against the entrenched white oligarchy? Whither the argument that rednecks rule the roost, and only cowboy Texans get to be the big shot in the White House? Whither the argument that a lefty liberal would never get near the hot seat? Be careful what you wish for, people.
'US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may be struggling to nudge ahead of his Republican rival in polls at home, but people across the world want him in the White House, a BBC poll said.
All 22 countries covered in the poll would prefer to see Senator Obama elected US president ahead of Republican John McCain.'
I imagine its true in most US presidential elections- people in many countries outside the US form a view about who they want to see in the White House. But it is unique in my experience that a candidate get this kind of lopsided support. Lets face it, if the world voted, McCain wouldn't lose- he'd be utterly wiped out. And whats funny is, many of the countries in Europe and round the world slathering over Mr Obama would NEVER elect a black man. Or a gypsy. Or a Turk. Or a Pakistani. Or a Chinaman. Or a Moroccan.
So why exactly do they like Mr Obama? Would Mr Obama win a German election? Would he win in Italy, or France, or Spain? Honest commentators would say no, resoundingly. So why do they want Mr Obama to win an American election so much? Perhaps in their secret dead-of-night fantasies, they believe Mr Obama might turn America into a European nation- Godless, spineless, military-less, childless, 'inclusive', gay-loving, selfish, hedonistic and nihilistic. Maybe they think he can dictate all those things to America, and they have to do it because he's the President.
I really don't think they've thought through the whole Barack Obama thing. If America elects him, whither the argument that the US is the most racist nation in the world, where blacks have no chance against the entrenched white oligarchy? Whither the argument that rednecks rule the roost, and only cowboy Texans get to be the big shot in the White House? Whither the argument that a lefty liberal would never get near the hot seat? Be careful what you wish for, people.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Even if we're in charge, we're not in charge
'With that in mind, here's the New York Times on McCain:
You would think that the author would at least mention somewhere in this article that the Democrats control both houses of Congress. You would be wrong.'
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_08_31-2008_09_06.shtml#1220617605
Apart from the easy answer to this conundrum, that the New York Times is just lying to make it easier for the Democratic ticket to win in November, I think there's a more subtle and vastly more far-reaching process at work. And that is the absolute necessity for the left to always be the 'outsiders', the 'opposition', 'speaking truth to power' from a position of virtuous weakness, the plucky little guy duking it out with 'The Man', the victim against the big White bully. Their ideology and their psychology intersect at this point.
For the baby-boomers who never wanted to cut the umbilical, who got everything given to them on a plate, who were born into plenty and luxury and good health and a bouncy economy and universally accessible education; it was just natural that they never wanted to vacate the world view of the pampered teenager. Mum and dad aren't just the source of all the goodies, they are also the representatives of the 'The Man'. They are the voice of authority, whilst the boomers are the spoilt brats who don't want to be ordered around by mum and dad any more. The Republicans are mum and dad; the Democrats are the spoilt brats. So OF COURSE, even if the Democrats control two out of the three branches of government, the Supreme court and Congress, they ARE STILL the outsiders, the plucky little guy, the victims. The Republicans, who only control the executive branch, are actually all-powerful and oppressive.
Somewhere, I believe most Americans fundamentally understand this. They couldn't articulate it, but they FEEL it. They listen to the snivelling whining of the Dems and they think 'but you are in charge, Ms Pelosi!. the reins of power are in your hands, do something with them'. But as I have pointed out many times, self-declared victimhood comes at a price- it paralyses and disables and removes the capability to exercise your own God-given power. Which is where the Dems have arrived. What have they done since arriving in Washington a couple of years ago? Absolutely nothing of consequence. They didn't even cut the funding for 'Bushs war' as they promised their nutroots.
Which is why the Democrat congress has the lowest ratings a congress has EVER had. But who castrated them? They did that to themselves.
The nominee’s friend described him as a "restless reformer who will clean up Washington." His defeated rival described him going to the capital to "drain that swamp."” His running mate described their mission as "change, the goal we share." And that was at the incumbent party’s convention.
After watching two political conclaves the last two weeks, it would be easy to be confused about which was really the gathering of the opposition. As Senator John McCain accepted the Republican nomination for president, he and his supporters sounded the call of insurgents seeking to topple the establishment, even though their party heads the establishment.
You would think that the author would at least mention somewhere in this article that the Democrats control both houses of Congress. You would be wrong.'
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_08_31-2008_09_06.shtml#1220617605
Apart from the easy answer to this conundrum, that the New York Times is just lying to make it easier for the Democratic ticket to win in November, I think there's a more subtle and vastly more far-reaching process at work. And that is the absolute necessity for the left to always be the 'outsiders', the 'opposition', 'speaking truth to power' from a position of virtuous weakness, the plucky little guy duking it out with 'The Man', the victim against the big White bully. Their ideology and their psychology intersect at this point.
For the baby-boomers who never wanted to cut the umbilical, who got everything given to them on a plate, who were born into plenty and luxury and good health and a bouncy economy and universally accessible education; it was just natural that they never wanted to vacate the world view of the pampered teenager. Mum and dad aren't just the source of all the goodies, they are also the representatives of the 'The Man'. They are the voice of authority, whilst the boomers are the spoilt brats who don't want to be ordered around by mum and dad any more. The Republicans are mum and dad; the Democrats are the spoilt brats. So OF COURSE, even if the Democrats control two out of the three branches of government, the Supreme court and Congress, they ARE STILL the outsiders, the plucky little guy, the victims. The Republicans, who only control the executive branch, are actually all-powerful and oppressive.
Somewhere, I believe most Americans fundamentally understand this. They couldn't articulate it, but they FEEL it. They listen to the snivelling whining of the Dems and they think 'but you are in charge, Ms Pelosi!. the reins of power are in your hands, do something with them'. But as I have pointed out many times, self-declared victimhood comes at a price- it paralyses and disables and removes the capability to exercise your own God-given power. Which is where the Dems have arrived. What have they done since arriving in Washington a couple of years ago? Absolutely nothing of consequence. They didn't even cut the funding for 'Bushs war' as they promised their nutroots.
Which is why the Democrat congress has the lowest ratings a congress has EVER had. But who castrated them? They did that to themselves.
Oh my God, are you are man Obama?
'“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”
However, he added, the country has not had enough “political reconciliation” and Iraqis still have not taken responsibility for their country.' [Hat Tip: Instapundit]
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/04/obama-surge-succeeded-beyond-wildest-dreams/
What utterly pathetic words. What kind of people would hear those words and not find them dissembling and mean and intellectually dishonest?
As Glenn Reynolds points out over at Instapundit, 'I think it succeeded in ways that John McCain anticipated. And General Petraeus' and he could have added George W Bush. The latter, after all, was the guy who could actually MAKE the surge happen; And fought tooth and nail against resistance from both in-country military brass and Pentagon brass to get his way on it. We here at Merry Warriors also predicted it would work. But then the common thread between McCain, Petraeus, President Bush and myself (apart from our debonair good looks obviously) is that we were all basing our judgement of the potential of the surge on a wide base of factual evidence, the latest information coming in from the soldiers on the ground, and at least a functional knowledge of how military operations work.
None of those three are present in Barry Obama. I get the distinct impression that lefties quietly abhor the military, spend as little time with members of the forces as possible, and consider studying military matters on a par with interfering sexually with children. So they just don't get anywhere near any of that stuff. But arguably, taking care of the common defense is the MOST important job of the President of the United States. Its not optional. You can't just wander in on the first day and try to get up to speed. Obama shows about the same understanding of military matters, and the United States role in the world as all the other lefty law professors- virtually nil. Remember, these are the guys who grew up singing 'I ain't gonna study war no more'...
So Obama scores very low on his military knowledge, but even lower on his personal integrity. Why not just say, I didn't have the faintest idea whether the surge would work or not, but everybody in my party hated it, so I just followed along. I said some completely unfair and stupid things to David Petraeus, which I now humbly ask his forgiveness for, and accept that I have a massive mountain of things to learn about the military before I sound off about it again.
Had he said anything even vaguely approximating that, I'd consider Senator Obama a real stand up man.
However, he added, the country has not had enough “political reconciliation” and Iraqis still have not taken responsibility for their country.' [Hat Tip: Instapundit]
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/04/obama-surge-succeeded-beyond-wildest-dreams/
What utterly pathetic words. What kind of people would hear those words and not find them dissembling and mean and intellectually dishonest?
As Glenn Reynolds points out over at Instapundit, 'I think it succeeded in ways that John McCain anticipated. And General Petraeus' and he could have added George W Bush. The latter, after all, was the guy who could actually MAKE the surge happen; And fought tooth and nail against resistance from both in-country military brass and Pentagon brass to get his way on it. We here at Merry Warriors also predicted it would work. But then the common thread between McCain, Petraeus, President Bush and myself (apart from our debonair good looks obviously) is that we were all basing our judgement of the potential of the surge on a wide base of factual evidence, the latest information coming in from the soldiers on the ground, and at least a functional knowledge of how military operations work.
None of those three are present in Barry Obama. I get the distinct impression that lefties quietly abhor the military, spend as little time with members of the forces as possible, and consider studying military matters on a par with interfering sexually with children. So they just don't get anywhere near any of that stuff. But arguably, taking care of the common defense is the MOST important job of the President of the United States. Its not optional. You can't just wander in on the first day and try to get up to speed. Obama shows about the same understanding of military matters, and the United States role in the world as all the other lefty law professors- virtually nil. Remember, these are the guys who grew up singing 'I ain't gonna study war no more'...
So Obama scores very low on his military knowledge, but even lower on his personal integrity. Why not just say, I didn't have the faintest idea whether the surge would work or not, but everybody in my party hated it, so I just followed along. I said some completely unfair and stupid things to David Petraeus, which I now humbly ask his forgiveness for, and accept that I have a massive mountain of things to learn about the military before I sound off about it again.
Had he said anything even vaguely approximating that, I'd consider Senator Obama a real stand up man.
Monday, September 01, 2008
The Palin Conversation
'There have been significant changes in perception of John McCain in the two days of polling since he named Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Since then, 49% of Republicans voice a Very Favorable opinion of McCain. That’s up six percentage points from 43% just before the announcement. Also, 64% of unaffiliated voters now give positive reviews to McCain, up ten points since naming his running mate. '
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll [Hat Tip: Instapundit]
In a Democracy, the most important question is, what do the people think? Much less interesting is, what do the pundits and Washington insiders think. I suspect there will be a hefty split between the former and the latter on Sarah Palin the whole run-in to the general. I am amazed at how ambivalent and often outright hostile conservative bloggers and pundits are being about Palin. They seem to be viewing her through the tiny and circumscribed lens of her CV- not addressing her in toto. The whole conversation about her seems to have got off to a bizarre start. Once you have heard the woman speak, and get a feel for what kind of individual she is, it is difficult to remember that her CV is relatively light. She is highly formidable. In four years time, it will be surprising if she doesn't get the Republican nomination in her own right. Thats the calibre of individual I believe she is.
Most of the punditry about her seems to miss the point- will the people vote for her? I absolutely believe they will. She comes across as somebody whose feet are firmly planted in day-to-day American life. Perhaps not the life of the eastern seaboard elite and the academic lefty brain-trusts, but the life of the great mass of American working folk. She is exactly what Obama isn't- one of us, rather than one of them. I could be wrong, I have been before, but I don't think I am.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll [Hat Tip: Instapundit]
In a Democracy, the most important question is, what do the people think? Much less interesting is, what do the pundits and Washington insiders think. I suspect there will be a hefty split between the former and the latter on Sarah Palin the whole run-in to the general. I am amazed at how ambivalent and often outright hostile conservative bloggers and pundits are being about Palin. They seem to be viewing her through the tiny and circumscribed lens of her CV- not addressing her in toto. The whole conversation about her seems to have got off to a bizarre start. Once you have heard the woman speak, and get a feel for what kind of individual she is, it is difficult to remember that her CV is relatively light. She is highly formidable. In four years time, it will be surprising if she doesn't get the Republican nomination in her own right. Thats the calibre of individual I believe she is.
Most of the punditry about her seems to miss the point- will the people vote for her? I absolutely believe they will. She comes across as somebody whose feet are firmly planted in day-to-day American life. Perhaps not the life of the eastern seaboard elite and the academic lefty brain-trusts, but the life of the great mass of American working folk. She is exactly what Obama isn't- one of us, rather than one of them. I could be wrong, I have been before, but I don't think I am.
Friday, August 29, 2008
As long as you're sure...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/29/104611/395/220/578471
'We all expected McCain to pick someone underwhelming to run with him. But we never could have expected a pick worse than Quayle. Yet that's what we got. Thanks, John!
(And for those who are certain to point out that Bush-Quayle won in '88 -- do you really think that Barack Obama is remotely close to Michael Dukakis in political skill? No? Didn't think so.)'
Writing rapidly (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt) makes us write funny things. So Michael Dukakis political skills knock BO's into a cocked hat? Yeah, didn't think thats what you meant...
We don't often wander over to the Kos. Its not worth the tripe- sorry trip. But I bring this article to your attention for one reason. It doesn't mention Hillary Clinton and the PUMA gals at all. Now Markos Moulitsas is a guy, and maybe older women do nothing for him, but older women are going to do something for Barack Obama. They are going to determine whether he wins or loses the election. Simple.
So how they vote is a big deal. Not mentioning that Sarah Palin just might hold some appeal to older female voters grumpy about not getting Hillary as the Dem nominee despite her superior experience and qualifications is just obtuse. The thing about older women is they show up at the ballot box. Young people get very excited about elections and then more pressing things like keg parties come along and voting gets shunted slightly down the priority list. Elections are determined by the people who show up. Obamas mighty legions just might forget to pop along and do the boring ticking of boxes on the day.
But thats ok- Kos assures us that 'The Palin pick takes a race already leaning toward Obama and pushes it further into his corner'. So thats sorted!
'We all expected McCain to pick someone underwhelming to run with him. But we never could have expected a pick worse than Quayle. Yet that's what we got. Thanks, John!
(And for those who are certain to point out that Bush-Quayle won in '88 -- do you really think that Barack Obama is remotely close to Michael Dukakis in political skill? No? Didn't think so.)'
Writing rapidly (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt) makes us write funny things. So Michael Dukakis political skills knock BO's into a cocked hat? Yeah, didn't think thats what you meant...
We don't often wander over to the Kos. Its not worth the tripe- sorry trip. But I bring this article to your attention for one reason. It doesn't mention Hillary Clinton and the PUMA gals at all. Now Markos Moulitsas is a guy, and maybe older women do nothing for him, but older women are going to do something for Barack Obama. They are going to determine whether he wins or loses the election. Simple.
So how they vote is a big deal. Not mentioning that Sarah Palin just might hold some appeal to older female voters grumpy about not getting Hillary as the Dem nominee despite her superior experience and qualifications is just obtuse. The thing about older women is they show up at the ballot box. Young people get very excited about elections and then more pressing things like keg parties come along and voting gets shunted slightly down the priority list. Elections are determined by the people who show up. Obamas mighty legions just might forget to pop along and do the boring ticking of boxes on the day.
But thats ok- Kos assures us that 'The Palin pick takes a race already leaning toward Obama and pushes it further into his corner'. So thats sorted!
But do they WANT to pay homage to ML King?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjI1MTQ4MTQ5MjA3ZDc4ODI4YTdjNjliOWMzZmY1NzI=&w=MA==
'The question that screams out at us is why, in the face of all of America’s progress with regard to race, Sen. Obama does not fully embrace the complete fulfillment of King’s dream by supporting efforts to ensure that all Americans are “judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Anyone who truly wants to pay homage to Dr. King should complete the journey that he charted.'
Is the enterprise on which the Democrat party has embarked to 'pay homage to Dr. King'? I don't think so. Grievance, disgust and hatred are what they seek. They want African-Americans to feel aggrieved; they want Americans to be disgusted by the terrible atrocities of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the torture at Gitmo, and the appalling state of the US economy, and the deep hatred for America felt throughout the world because of its unilateralism, and the increased threat of terrorism from the middle east and the terrible disastrous defeat in Iraq. The belief of the Democrats is that if they can get this grievance and disgust and hatred geed up high enough, people might entrust their vote to them.
Sadly, not only the day-to-day experience of Americans, but increasingly the front page of their newspaper and news website fails to tally with the Dem narrative line. The gap between the two is actually widening daily. Atrocities? They just didn't happen, unless you call killing incompetent insurgents murder. Torture at Gitmo? Only if you call too much pudding torture. US economy? Growing at one point four percentage points faster than the forecasters predicted... Anti-Amreican hostility? Been around since granddaddy was knee-high to a grasshopper... Increased threat from middle east terrorism? Er, is that from the dead AQiI guys, or the dead Taleban guys? Terrible defeat in Iraq? Postponed indefinitely...
Lets face it- if the Democrats were sitting in a sequin covered tent at the fair with a glass ball, they'd have been lynched by a mob of people wanting their money back. Pretty much every single one of their predictions about the future turned out to be horse-ptuey. And like a sad alcholic begging you for a fiver, he wants you to believe he'll do it all better next time. 'I promise you, I've drunk my last shandy'. 'I promise you, our next prediction about a Republican-caused catastrophe will actually BE a catastrophe'.
Yeah right. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, I'm probably a Democrat voter. Fool me every time, I'm Nancy Pelosi.
'The question that screams out at us is why, in the face of all of America’s progress with regard to race, Sen. Obama does not fully embrace the complete fulfillment of King’s dream by supporting efforts to ensure that all Americans are “judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Anyone who truly wants to pay homage to Dr. King should complete the journey that he charted.'
Is the enterprise on which the Democrat party has embarked to 'pay homage to Dr. King'? I don't think so. Grievance, disgust and hatred are what they seek. They want African-Americans to feel aggrieved; they want Americans to be disgusted by the terrible atrocities of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the torture at Gitmo, and the appalling state of the US economy, and the deep hatred for America felt throughout the world because of its unilateralism, and the increased threat of terrorism from the middle east and the terrible disastrous defeat in Iraq. The belief of the Democrats is that if they can get this grievance and disgust and hatred geed up high enough, people might entrust their vote to them.
Sadly, not only the day-to-day experience of Americans, but increasingly the front page of their newspaper and news website fails to tally with the Dem narrative line. The gap between the two is actually widening daily. Atrocities? They just didn't happen, unless you call killing incompetent insurgents murder. Torture at Gitmo? Only if you call too much pudding torture. US economy? Growing at one point four percentage points faster than the forecasters predicted... Anti-Amreican hostility? Been around since granddaddy was knee-high to a grasshopper... Increased threat from middle east terrorism? Er, is that from the dead AQiI guys, or the dead Taleban guys? Terrible defeat in Iraq? Postponed indefinitely...
Lets face it- if the Democrats were sitting in a sequin covered tent at the fair with a glass ball, they'd have been lynched by a mob of people wanting their money back. Pretty much every single one of their predictions about the future turned out to be horse-ptuey. And like a sad alcholic begging you for a fiver, he wants you to believe he'll do it all better next time. 'I promise you, I've drunk my last shandy'. 'I promise you, our next prediction about a Republican-caused catastrophe will actually BE a catastrophe'.
Yeah right. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, I'm probably a Democrat voter. Fool me every time, I'm Nancy Pelosi.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Your recession is a flight of fancy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7586280.stm
'The US economy grew at a revised 3.3% annually in the second quarter of 2008, the Commerce Department said, much higher than its first estimate of 1.9%.
The rebound was linked to strong US exports, helped by the weak dollar, while government tax rebates also boosted consumer spending.'
Instapundit has an ongoing taunt for lefties called, Dude, wheres my recession? Thats because despite deafening wailing and gnashing of teeth about the economy from Dems in the states, there is little or no actual evidence for economic woes. The US unemployment rate is less than 5%, its industries are selling at a tremendous rate, and the startup rate for new businesses is the highest for about a decade. So where does all the Dem crap originate? Price of houses going down? Great news if you're a poor person... can't get a dodgy mortgage? Er, you shouldn't have EVER been able to get one of those... lost loads of money in the mortgage market? You should NEVER have been giving money away that freely...
Lets face it, the 'recession' in the US is the Dems last best hope of beating McCain. Iraq is now chalked up firmly in the 'win' column, so no grist in that mill. The Dems record in Congress has been awful to the point of parody. It was only the will-o-the-wisp of economic mismanagement that might have seen them home- and now it looks like it was a mirage. Darn it.
'The US economy grew at a revised 3.3% annually in the second quarter of 2008, the Commerce Department said, much higher than its first estimate of 1.9%.
The rebound was linked to strong US exports, helped by the weak dollar, while government tax rebates also boosted consumer spending.'
Instapundit has an ongoing taunt for lefties called, Dude, wheres my recession? Thats because despite deafening wailing and gnashing of teeth about the economy from Dems in the states, there is little or no actual evidence for economic woes. The US unemployment rate is less than 5%, its industries are selling at a tremendous rate, and the startup rate for new businesses is the highest for about a decade. So where does all the Dem crap originate? Price of houses going down? Great news if you're a poor person... can't get a dodgy mortgage? Er, you shouldn't have EVER been able to get one of those... lost loads of money in the mortgage market? You should NEVER have been giving money away that freely...
Lets face it, the 'recession' in the US is the Dems last best hope of beating McCain. Iraq is now chalked up firmly in the 'win' column, so no grist in that mill. The Dems record in Congress has been awful to the point of parody. It was only the will-o-the-wisp of economic mismanagement that might have seen them home- and now it looks like it was a mirage. Darn it.
War for Oil for who?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7585790.stm
Its war for Oil... for China (apparently)!!!?!
Not sure how that fits into my current conspiracy theory, but its not going to be easy....
China's state-owned oil firm CNPC has agreed a $3bn (£1.63bn) oil services contract with the government of Iraq.
The two parties renegotiated a 1997 deal to pump oil from the Ahdab oilfield, the Iraqi oil minister said.
Under the new deal, output from the oilfield will be 110,000 barrels per day, up from the 90,000 barrels forecast in the original deal.
The deal is the first major oil contract with a foreign firm since the US-led war in Iraq, reports say.
Its war for Oil... for China (apparently)!!!?!
Not sure how that fits into my current conspiracy theory, but its not going to be easy....
Saturday, August 23, 2008
That'll make a difference!
'"No matter what happens we have already achieved our goal by proving that ordinary citizens with ordinary means can mobilise a defence of human rights for Palestinians," organiser Paul Larudee told the AFP news agency.
"We want people to see the Palestinian problem as one of human rights, not feeding them rice," he added'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7576479.stm
Weird, because the stated goal of the boat ride is 'an attempt to break Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip'. So surely, anything other than the breaking of Israels blockade would be failure? Of course, the boat ride really epitomizes the ludicrous state that European politics has reached. There are no more actions, just these highly symbolic 'statements' which stand in for actual actions. Israel has the fourth largest standing army on the planet. Can two boatloads of champagne socialists ("The activists include Lauren Booth, sister-in-law of former British PM Tony Blair, ... Also on board is left-wing Greek MP Tasos Kourakis.") wafting about the Mediterranean making statements to lefty mouthpiece Agence France Presse achieve something that say, the combined armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon could not achieve?
I'm thinking no. Not only that, what is the moral foundation of a protest against the Israeli blockade, imposed because of the choice made by Palestinian voters? Is the point of these savants that no matter what the Palestinians do, not matter how much they assault Israel and no matter which party they vote into power, there should be no consequences? I guess because the original sin was the creation of Israel, the only solution acceptable to these European humanitarians is the annihilation of Israel, during which no Palestinian should suffer a shortage of cooking oil. Sad how reality and our wishes diverge so much of the time.
"We want people to see the Palestinian problem as one of human rights, not feeding them rice," he added'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7576479.stm
Weird, because the stated goal of the boat ride is 'an attempt to break Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip'. So surely, anything other than the breaking of Israels blockade would be failure? Of course, the boat ride really epitomizes the ludicrous state that European politics has reached. There are no more actions, just these highly symbolic 'statements' which stand in for actual actions. Israel has the fourth largest standing army on the planet. Can two boatloads of champagne socialists ("The activists include Lauren Booth, sister-in-law of former British PM Tony Blair, ... Also on board is left-wing Greek MP Tasos Kourakis.") wafting about the Mediterranean making statements to lefty mouthpiece Agence France Presse achieve something that say, the combined armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon could not achieve?
I'm thinking no. Not only that, what is the moral foundation of a protest against the Israeli blockade, imposed because of the choice made by Palestinian voters? Is the point of these savants that no matter what the Palestinians do, not matter how much they assault Israel and no matter which party they vote into power, there should be no consequences? I guess because the original sin was the creation of Israel, the only solution acceptable to these European humanitarians is the annihilation of Israel, during which no Palestinian should suffer a shortage of cooking oil. Sad how reality and our wishes diverge so much of the time.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Todays Media Bullshit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7569942.stm
I am going to start a regular feature: media bullshit watch. This weeks is
The Deteriorating Security Situation
'The ambush came amid signs of deteriorating security in Afghanistan.' If I called up the last fifty BBC stories on Afghanistan, at least forty-nine would have that rediculous phrase in them. What does that actually mean? How do you measure a security situation in the middle of a war? Having lived in a country at war, I can tell you that on most days, it doesn't really seem like there is a war on, apart from a nagging fear at the bottom of your stomach that never goes away. For Afghans, it is exactly like that. Some weeks, there are lots of ambushes and IED attacks, and others there are few. Why? A million reasons. In the summer, there is lots more Taleban activity because its not freezing cold and the mountains are easier to wander about in. Does that mean August sees a Deteriorating Security Situation, and January an Improving Security Situation. No folks, thats just bullshit. The fact is, until the enemy are beaten, the war continues. Thats it.
The nature of warfare in Afghanistan has always been small scale bands roving about killing and stealing. Just like now. The bands are guys from the mountains, and the people they kill and rob are from the lowlands. Like now. What NATO is trying to do is help create a 20th Century (lets be realistic here) state in the lowlands, while killing as many of the 7th century throwbacks as possible so they can't stop it happening. Is it succeeding? In much of Afghanistan, yes. But not the south east third, which is the part accessible from the mountains, strangely. Will it work long term? As yet to be determined. Helped by depressive turgid BBC articles? You be the judge.
I am going to start a regular feature: media bullshit watch. This weeks is
The Deteriorating Security Situation
'The ambush came amid signs of deteriorating security in Afghanistan.' If I called up the last fifty BBC stories on Afghanistan, at least forty-nine would have that rediculous phrase in them. What does that actually mean? How do you measure a security situation in the middle of a war? Having lived in a country at war, I can tell you that on most days, it doesn't really seem like there is a war on, apart from a nagging fear at the bottom of your stomach that never goes away. For Afghans, it is exactly like that. Some weeks, there are lots of ambushes and IED attacks, and others there are few. Why? A million reasons. In the summer, there is lots more Taleban activity because its not freezing cold and the mountains are easier to wander about in. Does that mean August sees a Deteriorating Security Situation, and January an Improving Security Situation. No folks, thats just bullshit. The fact is, until the enemy are beaten, the war continues. Thats it.
The nature of warfare in Afghanistan has always been small scale bands roving about killing and stealing. Just like now. The bands are guys from the mountains, and the people they kill and rob are from the lowlands. Like now. What NATO is trying to do is help create a 20th Century (lets be realistic here) state in the lowlands, while killing as many of the 7th century throwbacks as possible so they can't stop it happening. Is it succeeding? In much of Afghanistan, yes. But not the south east third, which is the part accessible from the mountains, strangely. Will it work long term? As yet to be determined. Helped by depressive turgid BBC articles? You be the judge.
No South Ossetia for Zimbabwe
"Zimbabweans must realise that the country is in a practically binding state of socio-economic emergency," Reserve Bank governor Gideon Gono said.
"As such, there is need for a universal moratorium on all incomes and prices for a minimum period of six months," he added.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7569894.stm
What does a country need when its economy has been completely trashed by its government? Some verbosity and grandiosity from its Reserve Bank governnor, obviously. '...a practically binding state of socio-economic emergency'? What'dya do, eat the dictionary?
Personal hobby-horse: 'Mr Mugabe has denied he is ruining the economy, laying the blame instead on international sanctions he says have been imposed against Zimbabwe.' Where is the editor? Does he or she not know that this is a blatant, and easily disprovable, lie? There aren't any international sanctions against Zim, just targeted ones against ZANU PF, as any fule kno. Sadly, because the BBC and many other big media outlets don't bother to correct lies like this, every cab driver and pub pundit I talk to rails against the persecution of Zimbabwe by the domineering West, especially Britain. The fact is, there has been virtually no action on Zimbabwe at all, outside of a lot of grumping. Should there have been?
I just saw on Fox News Milliband saying that Russia probably broke international law in Georgia. When talking about places like Zimbabwe and Georgia, surely we ought to steer clear of invoking International Law? Both Mugabe and Putin love to trumpet the Wests picking and choosing when International Law suits and when not. Lets not give them a freebie. There is no International Law, none that means anything. For International Law to work, there would need to be something bigger and stronger than nations to enforce the law when the big nations got out of line. And there isn't. Wishing don't make it so. Far better than the fiction of International law is a commitment by all nations to a few crucial principles- like not carving up other peoples countries viz both Serbia and Georgia.
Russia has been waiting since Kosovan independence to show the world that this principle, of national integrity, was no longer valid in the international arena. It has now, and I'm not sure its wrong. That doesn't mean I don't sympathize with the Georgians, although Saakashvili is a tool. His hubris and overreach brought upon his people a terrible shock- although the casualty figures seem to have been multiplied dramatically by both sides for the same reason. It will take Georgia some time to come to terms with what happened. They have yet to lay the blame at the right door- their own stupid leader.
Is there an element of truth in the Russian story? Was theirs a humanitarian intervention of sorts, much like the NATO one in Serbia on behalf of the Kosovans? There is prima facie evidence for it. Saying that, it seems vastly overshadowed by the faux-SuperPower geopoliticizing which followed the initial intervention. So, who is going into Zimbabwe? A small invasion on behalf of the White Farmers anyone? Crickets chirp, tumbleweeds blow past.
"As such, there is need for a universal moratorium on all incomes and prices for a minimum period of six months," he added.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7569894.stm
What does a country need when its economy has been completely trashed by its government? Some verbosity and grandiosity from its Reserve Bank governnor, obviously. '...a practically binding state of socio-economic emergency'? What'dya do, eat the dictionary?
Personal hobby-horse: 'Mr Mugabe has denied he is ruining the economy, laying the blame instead on international sanctions he says have been imposed against Zimbabwe.' Where is the editor? Does he or she not know that this is a blatant, and easily disprovable, lie? There aren't any international sanctions against Zim, just targeted ones against ZANU PF, as any fule kno. Sadly, because the BBC and many other big media outlets don't bother to correct lies like this, every cab driver and pub pundit I talk to rails against the persecution of Zimbabwe by the domineering West, especially Britain. The fact is, there has been virtually no action on Zimbabwe at all, outside of a lot of grumping. Should there have been?
I just saw on Fox News Milliband saying that Russia probably broke international law in Georgia. When talking about places like Zimbabwe and Georgia, surely we ought to steer clear of invoking International Law? Both Mugabe and Putin love to trumpet the Wests picking and choosing when International Law suits and when not. Lets not give them a freebie. There is no International Law, none that means anything. For International Law to work, there would need to be something bigger and stronger than nations to enforce the law when the big nations got out of line. And there isn't. Wishing don't make it so. Far better than the fiction of International law is a commitment by all nations to a few crucial principles- like not carving up other peoples countries viz both Serbia and Georgia.
Russia has been waiting since Kosovan independence to show the world that this principle, of national integrity, was no longer valid in the international arena. It has now, and I'm not sure its wrong. That doesn't mean I don't sympathize with the Georgians, although Saakashvili is a tool. His hubris and overreach brought upon his people a terrible shock- although the casualty figures seem to have been multiplied dramatically by both sides for the same reason. It will take Georgia some time to come to terms with what happened. They have yet to lay the blame at the right door- their own stupid leader.
Is there an element of truth in the Russian story? Was theirs a humanitarian intervention of sorts, much like the NATO one in Serbia on behalf of the Kosovans? There is prima facie evidence for it. Saying that, it seems vastly overshadowed by the faux-SuperPower geopoliticizing which followed the initial intervention. So, who is going into Zimbabwe? A small invasion on behalf of the White Farmers anyone? Crickets chirp, tumbleweeds blow past.
The self-defeating Cause
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjY4MmY4NDgwMGM1N2VjZWZkYzhiZjA3ZDY5YzRmNWU=
'Until 2006, hardcore European jihadists would have traveled to Iraq. But the numbers doing so now have dwindled to almost zero, according to several European counterterrorism officials. That's because al-Qaeda's affiliate in Iraq has committed something tantamount to suicide.'
Suicide is the defining quality of Wahhabism. Normal people don't want to commit suicide. Given a good exposure to Wahhabism makes normal people realise they are psychopaths dressing up their murderous hate with religious platitudes. So with the suicide bombings comes organisational suicide. Look at the approval ratings of Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden in the Arab world, especially the Sunni parts, most especially Iraq; now as opposed to five years ago (except at Al Jazeera of course). What caused the change? By their fruit ye shall know them.
Most people want their kids to go to a good school, find some congenial work, and grow old peacefully. Those things are of no interest to the Wahhabists. Even the dumbest folk work that out eventually.
'Until 2006, hardcore European jihadists would have traveled to Iraq. But the numbers doing so now have dwindled to almost zero, according to several European counterterrorism officials. That's because al-Qaeda's affiliate in Iraq has committed something tantamount to suicide.'
Suicide is the defining quality of Wahhabism. Normal people don't want to commit suicide. Given a good exposure to Wahhabism makes normal people realise they are psychopaths dressing up their murderous hate with religious platitudes. So with the suicide bombings comes organisational suicide. Look at the approval ratings of Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden in the Arab world, especially the Sunni parts, most especially Iraq; now as opposed to five years ago (except at Al Jazeera of course). What caused the change? By their fruit ye shall know them.
Most people want their kids to go to a good school, find some congenial work, and grow old peacefully. Those things are of no interest to the Wahhabists. Even the dumbest folk work that out eventually.
Your AP at work, Ladies n Gennelman
http://taxfoundation.org/press/show/23469.html
'AP's Misreading of GAO Report Repeated Uncritically by Other Media
Washington, D.C., August 12, 2008 - An AP article today on the GAO's [US Government Accountability Office] new report on corporate tax liabilities contains a serious error that undermines the story's thesis.
The AP reported that, according to the GAO study comparing tax liabilities of corporations from 1998-2005, "about 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes [in 2005] were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts." Furthermore, this claim was repeated in numerous stories.
After careful review of the AP's story, Tax Foundation economist Josh Barro found that the AP significantly overstated the number of large corporations not paying corporate taxes.
"The actual report reflects that, of the 1.26 million U.S. corporations with no 2005 tax liability, just 3,565 were large," says Barro. "That's 0.28%, which is 90 times less than the figure reported by the AP. Policymakers and the public should not be deceived by this story that misrepresents the GAO report."'
Bah- 0.28% and 25%, whats the difference? The point is, the NARRATIVE was correct. Hate hate hate the big Corporations right?
'AP's Misreading of GAO Report Repeated Uncritically by Other Media
Washington, D.C., August 12, 2008 - An AP article today on the GAO's [US Government Accountability Office] new report on corporate tax liabilities contains a serious error that undermines the story's thesis.
The AP reported that, according to the GAO study comparing tax liabilities of corporations from 1998-2005, "about 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes [in 2005] were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts." Furthermore, this claim was repeated in numerous stories.
After careful review of the AP's story, Tax Foundation economist Josh Barro found that the AP significantly overstated the number of large corporations not paying corporate taxes.
"The actual report reflects that, of the 1.26 million U.S. corporations with no 2005 tax liability, just 3,565 were large," says Barro. "That's 0.28%, which is 90 times less than the figure reported by the AP. Policymakers and the public should not be deceived by this story that misrepresents the GAO report."'
Bah- 0.28% and 25%, whats the difference? The point is, the NARRATIVE was correct. Hate hate hate the big Corporations right?
Can't win for losing
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTcxN2EzZGQwNTc3MzE0ODkxODNlNjQwZjgwNTRkZTU=
This article reflects exactly my thinking on the Georgia situation- Russia had done everything right, but because of Putins clunking inability to do diplomacy...
'we have since seen the following developments:
Four presidents and one prime minister from Poland, Ukraine, and the Baltic states arrived in Tblisi to show solidarity with the Georgians. They addressed a large, enthusiastic crowd alongside Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili.
George Bush issued a strong statement condemning Russian behavior, put the Pentagon in charge of humanitarian aid and reconstruction in Georgia, and sent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to demonstrate U.S. backing for Georgia.
Poland signed the missile defense agreement with the U.S. that Russian prime minister (and de facto leader) Vladimir Putin had strongly and aggressively opposed.
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany — the country that had blocked the applications of Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO at the spring Bucharest summit — announced on her visit to Tblisi that Georgia’s membership was still open. In doing so she joined several other Western politicians and officials, including the NATO secretary general, who held out the continued prospect of NATO membership.
Ukraine, having left the Russian missile-defense system, has offered its interceptors to the new NATO one.'
It has been evident for some years now that this Russian administration just don't get international diplomacy. They seem to think that you can act like mafiosi and threaten people with extra-judicial murder and cutting off their vital supplies, and then merrily wander off to the next international diplomatic junket. What washes in Russia just doesn't wash in the West. And if Russia is ever going to challenge powerhouse economies like Brazil, it is going to need western money, expertise and good will. Lets face it, if the worlds largest country, with enormous natural resources, and a population twice that of France has HALF the GDP of the latter, you aren't doing well. Especially if your main export is oil... Much of that has to do with the brutality and criminality of the Russian business environment.
And sadly, there is a confluence of power between the top political criminals and the top business criminals in Russia. They are often the same people. The Russian constitution is a meaningless scrap of paper, as evidenced by Putin running the show in Georgia despite that being officially none of his business. It was funny in a sad way to see Medvedev plodding along in Putins wake like forlorn puppy. If Russians really want to head into the middle of the 21st century with a medieval kingship, are we in a position to chide them? Well, yes really. Because there are millions of good, honest, educated Russians who hate their newly rediscovered national pariah status, their lowest-common-denominator kleptocracy and the perennial loser attitude once again to the fore in international relations.
A strong, confident vibrant Russia is something everybody should want. But that is not what we have.
This article reflects exactly my thinking on the Georgia situation- Russia had done everything right, but because of Putins clunking inability to do diplomacy...
'we have since seen the following developments:
Four presidents and one prime minister from Poland, Ukraine, and the Baltic states arrived in Tblisi to show solidarity with the Georgians. They addressed a large, enthusiastic crowd alongside Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili.
George Bush issued a strong statement condemning Russian behavior, put the Pentagon in charge of humanitarian aid and reconstruction in Georgia, and sent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to demonstrate U.S. backing for Georgia.
Poland signed the missile defense agreement with the U.S. that Russian prime minister (and de facto leader) Vladimir Putin had strongly and aggressively opposed.
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany — the country that had blocked the applications of Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO at the spring Bucharest summit — announced on her visit to Tblisi that Georgia’s membership was still open. In doing so she joined several other Western politicians and officials, including the NATO secretary general, who held out the continued prospect of NATO membership.
Ukraine, having left the Russian missile-defense system, has offered its interceptors to the new NATO one.'
It has been evident for some years now that this Russian administration just don't get international diplomacy. They seem to think that you can act like mafiosi and threaten people with extra-judicial murder and cutting off their vital supplies, and then merrily wander off to the next international diplomatic junket. What washes in Russia just doesn't wash in the West. And if Russia is ever going to challenge powerhouse economies like Brazil, it is going to need western money, expertise and good will. Lets face it, if the worlds largest country, with enormous natural resources, and a population twice that of France has HALF the GDP of the latter, you aren't doing well. Especially if your main export is oil... Much of that has to do with the brutality and criminality of the Russian business environment.
And sadly, there is a confluence of power between the top political criminals and the top business criminals in Russia. They are often the same people. The Russian constitution is a meaningless scrap of paper, as evidenced by Putin running the show in Georgia despite that being officially none of his business. It was funny in a sad way to see Medvedev plodding along in Putins wake like forlorn puppy. If Russians really want to head into the middle of the 21st century with a medieval kingship, are we in a position to chide them? Well, yes really. Because there are millions of good, honest, educated Russians who hate their newly rediscovered national pariah status, their lowest-common-denominator kleptocracy and the perennial loser attitude once again to the fore in international relations.
A strong, confident vibrant Russia is something everybody should want. But that is not what we have.
Friday, August 01, 2008
He'll need all the German and French votes he can get
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109177/Gallup-Daily-Obama-45-McCain-44.aspx
Hilarious. Go on a World Victory Tour, get 200,000 Germans to come worship you, and watch your US poll ratings plummet. Couldn't happen to a nicer chap. All I can say is, I don't think this is short term. It reflects a long slow slide from utter dominance at the beginning of the Democratic primaries (I remember Obama polled 73% approval rating at one point) to todays middling mediocrity.
McCains support has been amazingly stable- but then the people who decided to vote for him are not wishy washy head-in-the-clouds teenagers or liberals. I'd count on virtually all McCains supporters turning out on a freezing, rainy November day; Obamas ditzy cheerleaders not so much.
Hilarious. Go on a World Victory Tour, get 200,000 Germans to come worship you, and watch your US poll ratings plummet. Couldn't happen to a nicer chap. All I can say is, I don't think this is short term. It reflects a long slow slide from utter dominance at the beginning of the Democratic primaries (I remember Obama polled 73% approval rating at one point) to todays middling mediocrity.
McCains support has been amazingly stable- but then the people who decided to vote for him are not wishy washy head-in-the-clouds teenagers or liberals. I'd count on virtually all McCains supporters turning out on a freezing, rainy November day; Obamas ditzy cheerleaders not so much.
Obama and the blue-collar vote
http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/1080942,CST-EDT-Carol30.article
'A few hours after leaving the "Women for Obama" luncheon, I ran into Sarah, not her real name. I've known her for a few years. A single mom, she free-lances, working as many jobs as she can to support two growing boys. She dreams of a permanent gig with benefits, but it's still just a dream.
A 37-year-old Democrat, she is also a college grad and a news junkie who has watched this campaign like a hawk. She surprised me with her anger Tuesday, saying she's voting for McCain.
To Sarah, Barack Obama is like the organic chicken at lunch. Sleek, elegant, beautifully prepared. Too cool.
Though both Obamas have spoken often and in great personal detail of their own humble beginnings, of Michelle's hardworking blue-collar dad and Barack's struggling single mom on food stamps, it somehow hasn't sold Sarah. You might ask if she was a die-hard Clinton supporter. The answer is yes, a supporter, but die-hard? Not really.'
My feeling about the whole Victory Tour of Europe episode was that it would reinforce certain aspects of the Obama phenomenon that would not help him. The one that strikes me the most is the strong smell of entitlement coming from both Obamas. For millions and millions of Americans like the woman above, the arrogant sashaying around is a real smack in the face for people whose daily existence is a grind, and who are never the beneficiary of minority entitlements, or indeed any kind of entitlements. Both Obamas have cushy jobs that are very generously paid, but they don't seem even a bit grateful, nor conscious of just how lucky and rare their good fortune is. Bill Clinton always managed to persuade working class Americans that he fundamentally understood what made them tick, and in what ways their lives were both tough and rewarding.
Obama, with his musing about 'God, Guns and xenophobia' shows that his understanding of blue-collar America is theoretical at best. Bill Clinton vibrated at the same tonal levels as many millions of working class Americans, a fact they recognised subliminally and voted accordingly. Obama just doesn't. Going to Europe and poncing around reinforced that perception amongst an essential tranche of the US electorate- the regular joe (and joelene) in the low-paying job.
'A few hours after leaving the "Women for Obama" luncheon, I ran into Sarah, not her real name. I've known her for a few years. A single mom, she free-lances, working as many jobs as she can to support two growing boys. She dreams of a permanent gig with benefits, but it's still just a dream.
A 37-year-old Democrat, she is also a college grad and a news junkie who has watched this campaign like a hawk. She surprised me with her anger Tuesday, saying she's voting for McCain.
To Sarah, Barack Obama is like the organic chicken at lunch. Sleek, elegant, beautifully prepared. Too cool.
Though both Obamas have spoken often and in great personal detail of their own humble beginnings, of Michelle's hardworking blue-collar dad and Barack's struggling single mom on food stamps, it somehow hasn't sold Sarah. You might ask if she was a die-hard Clinton supporter. The answer is yes, a supporter, but die-hard? Not really.'
My feeling about the whole Victory Tour of Europe episode was that it would reinforce certain aspects of the Obama phenomenon that would not help him. The one that strikes me the most is the strong smell of entitlement coming from both Obamas. For millions and millions of Americans like the woman above, the arrogant sashaying around is a real smack in the face for people whose daily existence is a grind, and who are never the beneficiary of minority entitlements, or indeed any kind of entitlements. Both Obamas have cushy jobs that are very generously paid, but they don't seem even a bit grateful, nor conscious of just how lucky and rare their good fortune is. Bill Clinton always managed to persuade working class Americans that he fundamentally understood what made them tick, and in what ways their lives were both tough and rewarding.
Obama, with his musing about 'God, Guns and xenophobia' shows that his understanding of blue-collar America is theoretical at best. Bill Clinton vibrated at the same tonal levels as many millions of working class Americans, a fact they recognised subliminally and voted accordingly. Obama just doesn't. Going to Europe and poncing around reinforced that perception amongst an essential tranche of the US electorate- the regular joe (and joelene) in the low-paying job.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Two days, Seven years
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7534949.stm
'The remains of British and Australian troops killed in WWI are to be taken from a French mass grave and reburied in individual plots at a new cemetery.
The bodies of up to 400 soldiers found at the grave in north-east France in May will be reburied as close as possible to where they were found.
The men will be given full military honours to commemorate their bravery.
They died in the Battle of Fromelles in July 1916, thought to be one of the bloodiest for Australian troops in WWI.
It took place over 19 and 20 July 1916 - 5,533 Australian soldiers and 1,547 British soldiers were killed.'
Or, to put it into context, more casualties than MNF-Iraq and NATO have suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan COMBINED in seven YEARS of fighting. Two days, seven years. I don't like making these kind of arguments- I think they coarsen the debate. But the left have a continuous drumbeat of stories about the 'heavy' casualties that we are suffering in Iraq and Afghanistan, hoping that the historically-challenged listening and watching audience will accept their propaganda that we can't afford such 'terrible' losses in these 'unwinnable' wars. Sadly, many millions of people have bought the argument- threadbare and paper-thin though it is.
And it may well be that the millions they have suckered will vote against McCain and for Obama in the election, and for the left propaganda merchants, it will all have been worthwhile.
'The remains of British and Australian troops killed in WWI are to be taken from a French mass grave and reburied in individual plots at a new cemetery.
The bodies of up to 400 soldiers found at the grave in north-east France in May will be reburied as close as possible to where they were found.
The men will be given full military honours to commemorate their bravery.
They died in the Battle of Fromelles in July 1916, thought to be one of the bloodiest for Australian troops in WWI.
It took place over 19 and 20 July 1916 - 5,533 Australian soldiers and 1,547 British soldiers were killed.'
Or, to put it into context, more casualties than MNF-Iraq and NATO have suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan COMBINED in seven YEARS of fighting. Two days, seven years. I don't like making these kind of arguments- I think they coarsen the debate. But the left have a continuous drumbeat of stories about the 'heavy' casualties that we are suffering in Iraq and Afghanistan, hoping that the historically-challenged listening and watching audience will accept their propaganda that we can't afford such 'terrible' losses in these 'unwinnable' wars. Sadly, many millions of people have bought the argument- threadbare and paper-thin though it is.
And it may well be that the millions they have suckered will vote against McCain and for Obama in the election, and for the left propaganda merchants, it will all have been worthwhile.
Crime, No Punishment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7534337.stm
'Digby Johnson, of the Johnson Partnership in Nottingham, said: "Offenders who would normally face court and serious sentences are walking away with a ticket in their back pocket.
"I've known a caution for a serious offence of actual bodily harm where the victim required stitches.
"A caution was issued for having a house full of cannabis plants. A 20-year-old man who had unlawful sex with a 15-year-old was cautioned."
The latest Home Office figures, and other evidence gathered by the BBC, appear to support the lawyers' claims that the number of offenders being prosecuted in court is in decline.
A spokesman for Her Majesty's Court Service said figures for the number of defendants appearing before the courts peaked in 2004, but then began to drop.
The latest figures from 2006 show appearances fell by more than 10% in two years to 1.78 million. Magistrates believe the next figures due out in November will show an even greater reduction.'
Weird huh? So why do think that is happening? I think I know at least part of the answer.
I recently saw up close and personal the dysfunctions of the system. I was assaulted, and insisted that the person who did it go to court and be punished. The Police and subsequently the detectives who handled the case were superb. I have no complaints about their responsiveness or professionalism. They did exactly what they were supposed to do throughout. When it got to court, everything changed. First, the prosecution council came in to ask us if we wouldn't mind him dropping the prosecution. After picking my chin up off the floor, I asked him why we would want to do that, after all the effort that had gone in to getting this person prosecuted. He said that the guy was older, and was a fine upstanding citizen and blah blah blah. He also said that there was a fair chance the guy would be acquitted. I said something along the lines of 'but its an open and shut case, we have all the witness statements and photos of the injuries caused' and he just looked shifty.
When the case was being heard, the prosecution was absolutely appalling. I could have done a better job from watching 'Law and Order' and not being a moron. The prosecutor didn't challenge any of the ludicrous things the defense said, some of which were defamatory and disgusting. The defense was a succession of rediculous lies- didn't matter. The prosecution was there in name only. So after hundreds of Police-hours and detective-hours and magistrate-hours and our time, the guy was acquitted despite being plainly guilty.
My immediate thought was what that must be like for the Police and detectives. How many days does their hard work end up being trounced in the courts by the idiots at the CPS, many of whom are Guardianista hippies who don't believe in punishment for crime, especially where minorities and the poor are concerned? Over months and years, the Police and detectives must just give up on the whole regime, and consider that SOME punishment, whether a caution or on-the-spot fine is better than huge amounts of wasted time and no conviction to show at the end.
The hippies and wastrels who now occupy many parts of our bureacracy, whether it is in the civil service, local government, the secret service or the legal system, are undermining the overt functions and purposes of those organisations. Why is Britain full of illegal aliens? Why are local taxes so staggeringly high? Why can't we trust our secret service to protect the nation? Why doesn't the CPS convict criminals? Because those organisations are run by a bunch of old hippies who don't believe in borders, who want socialism by the back door, who hate fuddy-duddy white Britain, who see the poor as victims of the capitalist system and therefore not guilty by reason of class warfare.
Communism may have bitten the dust in the Soviet Union and East Germany, but it is alive and well in Haringey and Hackney and Tower Hamlets.
'Digby Johnson, of the Johnson Partnership in Nottingham, said: "Offenders who would normally face court and serious sentences are walking away with a ticket in their back pocket.
"I've known a caution for a serious offence of actual bodily harm where the victim required stitches.
"A caution was issued for having a house full of cannabis plants. A 20-year-old man who had unlawful sex with a 15-year-old was cautioned."
The latest Home Office figures, and other evidence gathered by the BBC, appear to support the lawyers' claims that the number of offenders being prosecuted in court is in decline.
A spokesman for Her Majesty's Court Service said figures for the number of defendants appearing before the courts peaked in 2004, but then began to drop.
The latest figures from 2006 show appearances fell by more than 10% in two years to 1.78 million. Magistrates believe the next figures due out in November will show an even greater reduction.'
Weird huh? So why do think that is happening? I think I know at least part of the answer.
I recently saw up close and personal the dysfunctions of the system. I was assaulted, and insisted that the person who did it go to court and be punished. The Police and subsequently the detectives who handled the case were superb. I have no complaints about their responsiveness or professionalism. They did exactly what they were supposed to do throughout. When it got to court, everything changed. First, the prosecution council came in to ask us if we wouldn't mind him dropping the prosecution. After picking my chin up off the floor, I asked him why we would want to do that, after all the effort that had gone in to getting this person prosecuted. He said that the guy was older, and was a fine upstanding citizen and blah blah blah. He also said that there was a fair chance the guy would be acquitted. I said something along the lines of 'but its an open and shut case, we have all the witness statements and photos of the injuries caused' and he just looked shifty.
When the case was being heard, the prosecution was absolutely appalling. I could have done a better job from watching 'Law and Order' and not being a moron. The prosecutor didn't challenge any of the ludicrous things the defense said, some of which were defamatory and disgusting. The defense was a succession of rediculous lies- didn't matter. The prosecution was there in name only. So after hundreds of Police-hours and detective-hours and magistrate-hours and our time, the guy was acquitted despite being plainly guilty.
My immediate thought was what that must be like for the Police and detectives. How many days does their hard work end up being trounced in the courts by the idiots at the CPS, many of whom are Guardianista hippies who don't believe in punishment for crime, especially where minorities and the poor are concerned? Over months and years, the Police and detectives must just give up on the whole regime, and consider that SOME punishment, whether a caution or on-the-spot fine is better than huge amounts of wasted time and no conviction to show at the end.
The hippies and wastrels who now occupy many parts of our bureacracy, whether it is in the civil service, local government, the secret service or the legal system, are undermining the overt functions and purposes of those organisations. Why is Britain full of illegal aliens? Why are local taxes so staggeringly high? Why can't we trust our secret service to protect the nation? Why doesn't the CPS convict criminals? Because those organisations are run by a bunch of old hippies who don't believe in borders, who want socialism by the back door, who hate fuddy-duddy white Britain, who see the poor as victims of the capitalist system and therefore not guilty by reason of class warfare.
Communism may have bitten the dust in the Soviet Union and East Germany, but it is alive and well in Haringey and Hackney and Tower Hamlets.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Confused analyis of Irans possible futures
'The last thing Tehran wants is for the US to leave Iraq, at least anytime in the next five years. Obama first said that if elected he would withdraw US forces within 16 months. Then he said he would revise this figure. Despite his shifting position, Iranians see Obama as someone who is serious about ending America’s presence in Iraq, certainly in the next two to three years.
Should he do that, Tehran could be left with two possible scenarios, both of which spell trouble for them.
One is that the US leaves Iraq without solving its security problems. This could spell disaster for Tehran, as al-Qaeda is likely to turn its guns on Iran instead. The other possibility is that the US leaves Iraq as a stable country, both in terms of security and politics. This could be equally bad for Iran. A strong Iraq, even one in which Shiites are in charge, is not in Iran’s interests either as Shiites there could be placed under pressure to severe [sic] their ties with Iran as means of showing their allegiance. And if the ruling Shiites refused to do so, the Kurds and the Sunnis could very well start destabilizing the government in Baghdad, thus producing a Lebanon right on Iran’s doorstep.'
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-obama-worries-iran/
Gazing into the future is always tough. But this attempt at prognostication is more confused than most. According to this analysis, the reason a weak, ineffective Iraq would be a problem for Iran would be Al Qaeda and what it would do next. Right now, the AQiI operatives are down to the last few old men and boys, and whatever women they can coerce into blowing themselves up. The future threat they might represent to Iran seems pretty inconsequential. We might call the weak, ineffective Iraq the 'Lebanon Scenario'. Bizarrely, a strong, stable Iraq is deemed to also be simply a precursor to 'Lebanon Scenario' in this analysis, because the Kurds and Sunnis would undermine a successful Iran-linked Shia govmt.
It seems pretty obvious to most observers that a weak 'Lebanon Scenario' Iraq would be vastly preferable to Iran than the alternative. There are endless ways Iran can screw around with Iraq if it is weak, divided and internally preoccupied. It would without doubt do so; it has been doing it for the last five years when these conditions held. Now that Iraq is sorting itself out under the increasingly assured hand of Nuri Al Maliki, Irans scope for hanky panky is declining precipitously. Thats all bad news for the Mullahs.
A strong, democratic Shia Iraq is virtually the perfect storm of badness for the Mullahs, on the other hand. Shia Arabs may start to look to Iraq as the model of their future, living in harmony with Sunnis in a secular state where all streams of Islamic belief are tolerated, indeed protected. Irans model will increasingly be seen as a kind of Islamic fascism, both totalitarian and old-fashioned. Especially without nuclear weapons, an increasingly poor and inept Iran is going to be no inspiration to the ordinary folk all over the middle east and further afield- and the Islamic Revolutions main raison-d'etre will disappear.
Should he do that, Tehran could be left with two possible scenarios, both of which spell trouble for them.
One is that the US leaves Iraq without solving its security problems. This could spell disaster for Tehran, as al-Qaeda is likely to turn its guns on Iran instead. The other possibility is that the US leaves Iraq as a stable country, both in terms of security and politics. This could be equally bad for Iran. A strong Iraq, even one in which Shiites are in charge, is not in Iran’s interests either as Shiites there could be placed under pressure to severe [sic] their ties with Iran as means of showing their allegiance. And if the ruling Shiites refused to do so, the Kurds and the Sunnis could very well start destabilizing the government in Baghdad, thus producing a Lebanon right on Iran’s doorstep.'
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-obama-worries-iran/
Gazing into the future is always tough. But this attempt at prognostication is more confused than most. According to this analysis, the reason a weak, ineffective Iraq would be a problem for Iran would be Al Qaeda and what it would do next. Right now, the AQiI operatives are down to the last few old men and boys, and whatever women they can coerce into blowing themselves up. The future threat they might represent to Iran seems pretty inconsequential. We might call the weak, ineffective Iraq the 'Lebanon Scenario'. Bizarrely, a strong, stable Iraq is deemed to also be simply a precursor to 'Lebanon Scenario' in this analysis, because the Kurds and Sunnis would undermine a successful Iran-linked Shia govmt.
It seems pretty obvious to most observers that a weak 'Lebanon Scenario' Iraq would be vastly preferable to Iran than the alternative. There are endless ways Iran can screw around with Iraq if it is weak, divided and internally preoccupied. It would without doubt do so; it has been doing it for the last five years when these conditions held. Now that Iraq is sorting itself out under the increasingly assured hand of Nuri Al Maliki, Irans scope for hanky panky is declining precipitously. Thats all bad news for the Mullahs.
A strong, democratic Shia Iraq is virtually the perfect storm of badness for the Mullahs, on the other hand. Shia Arabs may start to look to Iraq as the model of their future, living in harmony with Sunnis in a secular state where all streams of Islamic belief are tolerated, indeed protected. Irans model will increasingly be seen as a kind of Islamic fascism, both totalitarian and old-fashioned. Especially without nuclear weapons, an increasingly poor and inept Iran is going to be no inspiration to the ordinary folk all over the middle east and further afield- and the Islamic Revolutions main raison-d'etre will disappear.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Making up stuff: Global Rights
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTJkNzIwZWQ5MTU3OWY2ODM2OWRkZjczYjVjMGU4Yjg=&w=MA==
'In the European mind, Guantanamo is one of the centers of evil in the world, a dungeon where George W. Bush commits unspeakable acts on innocent Muslims who just happened to be on a battlefield in Afghanistan or Pakistan when U.S. troops captured them.
She says the prisoners in Gitmo have been denied their constitutional rights.
I say they are enemy combatants; they have rights under international treaties, but not American constitutional rights.
But they have “global rights,” she insists.
What are “global rights”? I ask.
There’s no precise definition, but as far as I could tell, “global rights” appear to be American constitutional rights applied to the entire planet. It’s an astounding notion, given that American constitutional rights definitely do not apply across the entire planet — not even in places like, well, France.'
Where to begin? The French beams vs the American motes? The fact that not only do Gitmo detainees have rights, they even get medical treatment, good food, entertainement and free Korans? Rather than say, a bullet in the back of the head... or that the desparately poor banlieues north of Paris crammed with unemployed North African immigrants tell you everything you need to know about racism and discrimination in France.
'In the European mind, Guantanamo is one of the centers of evil in the world, a dungeon where George W. Bush commits unspeakable acts on innocent Muslims who just happened to be on a battlefield in Afghanistan or Pakistan when U.S. troops captured them.
She says the prisoners in Gitmo have been denied their constitutional rights.
I say they are enemy combatants; they have rights under international treaties, but not American constitutional rights.
But they have “global rights,” she insists.
What are “global rights”? I ask.
There’s no precise definition, but as far as I could tell, “global rights” appear to be American constitutional rights applied to the entire planet. It’s an astounding notion, given that American constitutional rights definitely do not apply across the entire planet — not even in places like, well, France.'
Where to begin? The French beams vs the American motes? The fact that not only do Gitmo detainees have rights, they even get medical treatment, good food, entertainement and free Korans? Rather than say, a bullet in the back of the head... or that the desparately poor banlieues north of Paris crammed with unemployed North African immigrants tell you everything you need to know about racism and discrimination in France.
What do you mean, almost?
'A Criminal Enterprise
At the peak of the militia’s control last summer, it was involved at all levels of the local economy, taking money from gas stations, private minibus services, electric switching stations, food and clothing markets, ice factories, and even collecting rent from squatters in houses whose owners had been displaced. The four main gas stations in Sadr City were handing over a total of about $13,000 a day, according to a member of the local council.
“It’s almost like the old Mafia criminal days in the United States,” said Brig. Gen. Jeffrey W. Talley, an Army engineer rebuilding Sadr City’s main market.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/world/middleeast/27mahdi.html?_r=3&hp=&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
The New York Times has latterly accepted that its political allegiance can no longer trump its professional requirement to report facts. This is a very interesting article, especially if you remember the unadulterated horseshite that was very recently coming from every part of the left including the New York Times. I blogged not long ago about numerous articles in the MSM saying that for all intents and purposes, the Shia militias including the JAM were boy scouts who provide all manner of services to the local populace, up to and including helping old ladies across the street. That horseshite came straight from the JAM and Badr Brigades propaganda workshops. It was reported verbatim. Now that journalists can actually talk to the locals, and especially the tribal leaders who form the spine of governance in Iraq, a different story is emerging. Fancy!
One day there will a special punishment for journalists who are willing to lie for loathesome terrorists just so they can advance some political agenda. I hope it involves fire ants in some way.
At the peak of the militia’s control last summer, it was involved at all levels of the local economy, taking money from gas stations, private minibus services, electric switching stations, food and clothing markets, ice factories, and even collecting rent from squatters in houses whose owners had been displaced. The four main gas stations in Sadr City were handing over a total of about $13,000 a day, according to a member of the local council.
“It’s almost like the old Mafia criminal days in the United States,” said Brig. Gen. Jeffrey W. Talley, an Army engineer rebuilding Sadr City’s main market.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/world/middleeast/27mahdi.html?_r=3&hp=&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
The New York Times has latterly accepted that its political allegiance can no longer trump its professional requirement to report facts. This is a very interesting article, especially if you remember the unadulterated horseshite that was very recently coming from every part of the left including the New York Times. I blogged not long ago about numerous articles in the MSM saying that for all intents and purposes, the Shia militias including the JAM were boy scouts who provide all manner of services to the local populace, up to and including helping old ladies across the street. That horseshite came straight from the JAM and Badr Brigades propaganda workshops. It was reported verbatim. Now that journalists can actually talk to the locals, and especially the tribal leaders who form the spine of governance in Iraq, a different story is emerging. Fancy!
One day there will a special punishment for journalists who are willing to lie for loathesome terrorists just so they can advance some political agenda. I hope it involves fire ants in some way.
When satire bites: comments tell you this hit home
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4392846.ece
'He ventured forth to bring light to the world
The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers'
The best satire goes to the nub of what is both funny and stupid about a particular circumstance- this is one of the funniest things I've read in ages, but it is mostly funny because its true.
"Hard to tell the difference between satire and garbage these days. The recent cover of the New Yorker is one more example."
bill Leffler, kennebunkport, usa
"Obama is a great orator and he's a true beacon of light for persons of mixed race everywhere. He speaks profoundly and when you mock him, you show your lack of respect for humanity. The lost British Empire..."
Stella, Irvine, CA, U.S.A.
"It would be a sad world if there were no optimism. People mock inspiration because it is a threat to convenient disappointment. Of course Obama isn't the Messiah. In fact, he's a politician. He just happens to be a politician who is not afraid to try to inspire. Enjoy it, it's rare but productive"
Dylan Bry, Carlsbad, USA
"This is clever writing to be sure but without substance, honesty, or truth. Bush, Cheney, and all the other cowards that promoted this war (Hannity, Limbaugh) all these fake flag pin lying patriots will enjoy your article. All the stupid unthinking people will love it."
Stephen Bleeds , Houston , Texas
When you provoke a torrent of outrage like this, with its accusations of blasphemy, a 'lack of respect for humanity' and being 'without substance, honesty, or truth', you know you have hit your target. Those afficianadoes of 'The Life of Brian' will recall the desperation of the followers, people who will follow just about anybody and for the flimsiest of reasons ("follow the shoe, follow the shoe" "no no, follow the gourd, follow the gourd") and whose extremely shallow-rooted allegiance was masked by their apocalyptic denunciations of anybody who wouldn't join the rejoicing throng. If you have experienced young teenage girls allegiance to rock bands, you will have a good idea of what I'm talking about. Just be prepared to protect yourself with every available weapon if you happen to mock 'Johnny-come-lately' and his beat combo (to quote Ian Hislop).
'He ventured forth to bring light to the world
The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers'
The best satire goes to the nub of what is both funny and stupid about a particular circumstance- this is one of the funniest things I've read in ages, but it is mostly funny because its true.
"Hard to tell the difference between satire and garbage these days. The recent cover of the New Yorker is one more example."
bill Leffler, kennebunkport, usa
"Obama is a great orator and he's a true beacon of light for persons of mixed race everywhere. He speaks profoundly and when you mock him, you show your lack of respect for humanity. The lost British Empire..."
Stella, Irvine, CA, U.S.A.
"It would be a sad world if there were no optimism. People mock inspiration because it is a threat to convenient disappointment. Of course Obama isn't the Messiah. In fact, he's a politician. He just happens to be a politician who is not afraid to try to inspire. Enjoy it, it's rare but productive"
Dylan Bry, Carlsbad, USA
"This is clever writing to be sure but without substance, honesty, or truth. Bush, Cheney, and all the other cowards that promoted this war (Hannity, Limbaugh) all these fake flag pin lying patriots will enjoy your article. All the stupid unthinking people will love it."
Stephen Bleeds , Houston , Texas
When you provoke a torrent of outrage like this, with its accusations of blasphemy, a 'lack of respect for humanity' and being 'without substance, honesty, or truth', you know you have hit your target. Those afficianadoes of 'The Life of Brian' will recall the desperation of the followers, people who will follow just about anybody and for the flimsiest of reasons ("follow the shoe, follow the shoe" "no no, follow the gourd, follow the gourd") and whose extremely shallow-rooted allegiance was masked by their apocalyptic denunciations of anybody who wouldn't join the rejoicing throng. If you have experienced young teenage girls allegiance to rock bands, you will have a good idea of what I'm talking about. Just be prepared to protect yourself with every available weapon if you happen to mock 'Johnny-come-lately' and his beat combo (to quote Ian Hislop).
Do you suck as a blogger?
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2008/07/blogging-sucks-women-minorities-hardest.html
Rules for Good Blogging
1. Have at least half a brain and demonstrate that it actually functions by not writing egregiously stupid stuff.
2. At least 75 percent of your posts should have nothing to do with you or your life.
3. Don't post a picture or talk about your romantic life, your children or your pets.
4. Don't threaten to quit blogging every time anyone criticizes you.
5. Learn how to defend your positions with facts and logic instead of passive-aggressive parthian shots fired off as you run away.
Forget for one moment that these rules were written for women as part of the sex wars. These rules, if they mean anything at all, must be universal. So lets just see how my blogging compares to the golden standard-
Rule 1: Have half a brain and use it
This one I'd have to leave for others to judge
Rule 2: 25% or less of posts about me
Tick
Rule 3: No pets, no children, no girlfriends
Tick
Rule 4: Don't threaten to quit when you are criticized
Tick
Rule 5: Defend positions with facts and logic
I would like to think that all my opinions are fundamentally based on facts, but I'm happy for people to bring new facts to my attention. This quite often results in a change of opinion. I'm also happy to hear other peoples opinions, as long as they demonstrably meet the same criteria.
Rules for Good Blogging
1. Have at least half a brain and demonstrate that it actually functions by not writing egregiously stupid stuff.
2. At least 75 percent of your posts should have nothing to do with you or your life.
3. Don't post a picture or talk about your romantic life, your children or your pets.
4. Don't threaten to quit blogging every time anyone criticizes you.
5. Learn how to defend your positions with facts and logic instead of passive-aggressive parthian shots fired off as you run away.
Forget for one moment that these rules were written for women as part of the sex wars. These rules, if they mean anything at all, must be universal. So lets just see how my blogging compares to the golden standard-
Rule 1: Have half a brain and use it
This one I'd have to leave for others to judge
Rule 2: 25% or less of posts about me
Tick
Rule 3: No pets, no children, no girlfriends
Tick
Rule 4: Don't threaten to quit when you are criticized
Tick
Rule 5: Defend positions with facts and logic
I would like to think that all my opinions are fundamentally based on facts, but I'm happy for people to bring new facts to my attention. This quite often results in a change of opinion. I'm also happy to hear other peoples opinions, as long as they demonstrably meet the same criteria.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Fantastic summary of why Americans should vote for McCain
This is all Americans need to read before they decide who to vote for. The real man, or the sham.
'Senator Obama and I also faced a decision, which amounted to a real-time test for a future commander-in-chief. America passed that test. I believe my judgment passed that test. And I believe Senator Obama's failed.
We both knew the politically safe choice was to support some form of retreat. All the polls said the "surge" was unpopular. Many pundits, experts and policymakers opposed it and advocated withdrawing our troops and accepting the consequences. I chose to support the new counterinsurgency strategy backed by additional troops -- which I had advocated since 2003, after my first trip to Iraq. Many observers said my position would end my hopes of becoming president. I said I would rather lose a campaign than see America lose a war. My choice was not smart politics. It didn't test well in focus groups. It ignored all the polls. It also didn't matter. The country I love had one final chance to succeed in Iraq. The new strategy was it. So I supported it. Today, the effects of the new strategy are obvious. The surge has succeeded, and we are, at long last, finally winning this war.
Senator Obama made a different choice. He not only opposed the new strategy, but actually tried to prevent us from implementing it. He didn't just advocate defeat, he tried to legislate it. When his efforts failed, he continued to predict the failure of our troops. As our soldiers and Marines prepared to move into Baghdad neighborhoods and Anbari villages, Senator Obama predicted that their efforts would make the sectarian violence in Iraq worse, not better.
And as our troops took the fight to the enemy, Senator Obama tried to cut off funding for them. He was one of only 14 senators to vote against the emergency funding in May 2007 that supported our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. ...
Three weeks after Senator Obama voted to deny funding for our troops in the field, General Ray Odierno launched the first major combat operations of the surge. Senator Obama declared defeat one month later: "My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now." His assessment was popular at the time. But it couldn't have been more wrong.
By November 2007, the success of the surge was becoming apparent. Attacks on Coalition forces had dropped almost 60 percent from pre-surge levels. American casualties had fallen by more than half. Iraqi civilian deaths had fallen by more than two-thirds. But Senator Obama ignored the new and encouraging reality. "Not only have we not seen improvements," he said, "but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there."
If Senator Obama had prevailed, American forces would have had to retreat under fire. The Iraqi Army would have collapsed. Civilian casualties would have increased dramatically. Al Qaeda would have killed the Sunni sheikhs who had begun to cooperate with us, and the "Sunni Awakening" would have been strangled at birth. Al Qaeda fighters would have safe havens, from where they could train Iraqis and foreigners, and turn Iraq into a base for launching attacks on Americans elsewhere. Civil war, genocide and wider conflict would have been likely.
Above all, America would have been humiliated and weakened. Our military, strained by years of sacrifice, would have suffered a demoralizing defeat. Our enemies around the globe would have been emboldened. ...
Senator Obama told the American people what he thought you wanted to hear. I told you the truth.
Fortunately, Senator Obama failed, not our military. We rejected the audacity of hopelessness, and we were right. Violence in Iraq fell to such low levels for such a long time that Senator Obama, detecting the success he never believed possible, falsely claimed that he had always predicted it. ... In Iraq, we are no longer on the doorstep of defeat, but on the road to victory.
Senator Obama said this week that even knowing what he knows today that he still would have opposed the surge. In retrospect, given the opportunity to choose between failure and success, he chooses failure. I cannot conceive of a Commander in Chief making that choice.'
(Hat Tip: PowerLine)
'Senator Obama and I also faced a decision, which amounted to a real-time test for a future commander-in-chief. America passed that test. I believe my judgment passed that test. And I believe Senator Obama's failed.
We both knew the politically safe choice was to support some form of retreat. All the polls said the "surge" was unpopular. Many pundits, experts and policymakers opposed it and advocated withdrawing our troops and accepting the consequences. I chose to support the new counterinsurgency strategy backed by additional troops -- which I had advocated since 2003, after my first trip to Iraq. Many observers said my position would end my hopes of becoming president. I said I would rather lose a campaign than see America lose a war. My choice was not smart politics. It didn't test well in focus groups. It ignored all the polls. It also didn't matter. The country I love had one final chance to succeed in Iraq. The new strategy was it. So I supported it. Today, the effects of the new strategy are obvious. The surge has succeeded, and we are, at long last, finally winning this war.
Senator Obama made a different choice. He not only opposed the new strategy, but actually tried to prevent us from implementing it. He didn't just advocate defeat, he tried to legislate it. When his efforts failed, he continued to predict the failure of our troops. As our soldiers and Marines prepared to move into Baghdad neighborhoods and Anbari villages, Senator Obama predicted that their efforts would make the sectarian violence in Iraq worse, not better.
And as our troops took the fight to the enemy, Senator Obama tried to cut off funding for them. He was one of only 14 senators to vote against the emergency funding in May 2007 that supported our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. ...
Three weeks after Senator Obama voted to deny funding for our troops in the field, General Ray Odierno launched the first major combat operations of the surge. Senator Obama declared defeat one month later: "My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now." His assessment was popular at the time. But it couldn't have been more wrong.
By November 2007, the success of the surge was becoming apparent. Attacks on Coalition forces had dropped almost 60 percent from pre-surge levels. American casualties had fallen by more than half. Iraqi civilian deaths had fallen by more than two-thirds. But Senator Obama ignored the new and encouraging reality. "Not only have we not seen improvements," he said, "but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there."
If Senator Obama had prevailed, American forces would have had to retreat under fire. The Iraqi Army would have collapsed. Civilian casualties would have increased dramatically. Al Qaeda would have killed the Sunni sheikhs who had begun to cooperate with us, and the "Sunni Awakening" would have been strangled at birth. Al Qaeda fighters would have safe havens, from where they could train Iraqis and foreigners, and turn Iraq into a base for launching attacks on Americans elsewhere. Civil war, genocide and wider conflict would have been likely.
Above all, America would have been humiliated and weakened. Our military, strained by years of sacrifice, would have suffered a demoralizing defeat. Our enemies around the globe would have been emboldened. ...
Senator Obama told the American people what he thought you wanted to hear. I told you the truth.
Fortunately, Senator Obama failed, not our military. We rejected the audacity of hopelessness, and we were right. Violence in Iraq fell to such low levels for such a long time that Senator Obama, detecting the success he never believed possible, falsely claimed that he had always predicted it. ... In Iraq, we are no longer on the doorstep of defeat, but on the road to victory.
Senator Obama said this week that even knowing what he knows today that he still would have opposed the surge. In retrospect, given the opportunity to choose between failure and success, he chooses failure. I cannot conceive of a Commander in Chief making that choice.'
(Hat Tip: PowerLine)
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Washington Post sidles up to the truth, sniffs
From the Washington Post, via Instapundit.
'The initial media coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy. . . .
Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.'
Thats about the smartest thing about the war on Islamism I've read so far from the Washington Post. I agree with every word. Of course, it fails to point to one obvious corollary- that if Al Qaeda are in Pakistan, then so will the war, eventually. But hey, baby steps, baby steps.
'The initial media coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy. . . .
Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.'
Thats about the smartest thing about the war on Islamism I've read so far from the Washington Post. I agree with every word. Of course, it fails to point to one obvious corollary- that if Al Qaeda are in Pakistan, then so will the war, eventually. But hey, baby steps, baby steps.
A flawed study of Pakistani attitudes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7511771.stm
'When soldiers here die fighting the pro-Taleban tribesmen in their border region, there is a debate about whether or not they are martyrs. Some religious scholars say that honour belongs to the Taleban, not to troops fighting their own people.
This time, according to those at the funerals, there was no such ambivalence.
These soldiers were killed by Americans... non-Muslims, said the Imams, bent on harming Islamic countries. "May God destroy the alien forces," they prayed.'
I am not sure how much Barbara Plett knows about Pakistans history, but its interesting to me that she only sees Pakistans relationship with the US in isolation. Pakistan has fought six wars since its independence in 1947, with India and Bangladesh. It clearly has designs on Afghanistan, and believes that it can have a sort of empire if it gets to dominate that country. It seems obvious in the context of the continuing fight for control of Kashmir and the fight to retain Bangladesh in the face of a very strong desire of the Bengalis to have independence, that the bald-faced support for the repeated Taleban invasions of Afghanistan is about national greatness and the desire for territory and control.
And like a petulant teenager who can't get his way, the Pakistani response to their loss of Bangladesh was to cut off all relations with that country; the response to Indias understandable desire to hold on to Kashmir (which was always part of British India) was to underwrite and host an ongoing terrorist campaign against India; and to underwrite and host a series of invading armies into Afghanistan to fight against the very people it pretends to be allied with.
'During my time here, there has always been antipathy to American foreign policy, as in other Muslim countries where the "war on terror" is seen as little more than a war against Islam.'
Ms Plett doesn't bother to try to rebut this ludicrous misconception- indeed, it seems that most BBC employees agree with this conception in most respects.
'A few weeks later she [the US Ambassador to Pakistan] was snubbed by a member of that prosperous middle class while handing out awards for academic excellence. A Pakistani university student brushed past her, strode to the podium and made a 20-second protest speech.
The young man, who is studying at Harvard, became a celebrity. He was praised by the media and inundated with thousands of messages of support.
His moment of defiance was endlessly replayed on YouTube.'
I have railed at the lack of seriousness among British politicians in the past, and their essential trivialness- but this goes way way beyond that. To me, it is almost the definition of stupidity to act repeatedly and robustly against your own interests. But then right across the muslim world, that seems to be deeply ingrained habit.
'America's key relationship in Pakistan has been with the army, especially since 9/11.
Put simply, the US pays the Pakistani army billions of dollars to fight the "war on terror".
US legislators refer to this relationship as transactional but many Pakistanis say it is mercenary.'
And why is the US's key relationship in Pakistan with the army? Ask any Pakistani. Its because its the only institution remaining from British India days that retains its cohesion and utility. The political and legal systems fell into deep disrepute virtually as soon as the British left and have remained riddled with corruption, nepotism, tribalism and venality. So who would YOU deal with?
'...cynicism turned to anger when Mr Bush continued to back his friend, despite a popular movement against Mr Musharraf for illegally purging the judiciary and despite the defeat of the president's supporters in February's general elections.'
Over and over again, I can't help noticing how inconvenient truths are elided from reporting places like Pakistan. 'The judiciary' in Pakistan is not like 'The judiciary' in America or Britain or Sweden. People become lawyers in Pakistan to get rich and to go bat for their familial and tribal interests. Justice and the rule of law are not in the mix. I have seen at least five or six reports on the BBC about 'protests' by lawyers in Islamabad, which managed to get through the whole piece without mentioning that the Pakistani legal system is about wealth, prestige and power and not about the law. And when anybody interferes with the inalieanable rights of lawyers to get rich, they head for the streets!
This piece by Ms Plett straddles two issues; the first being Pakistans relations with the US in a geopolitical sense; and secondly, the opinions of Pakistanis about the United States and its role in the world. On both counts, large chunks of the most important and relevant facts are missing. More than half of all schools in Pakistan teach ONLY the Koran. No math, no science, no civics, no geography, no foreign languages except Arabic, no technology subjects, just the Koran. And you want sensible opinions from these people about international relations? Or even how a tap works?
'Pakistan does face a serious threat from Islamist militancy. But as long as it is the army that is leading the way, with little apparent support from the people, many Pakistanis will continue to see this as America's war.
That is why the army itself is advocating a debate in parliament, so the country can evolve its own policy.'
Many Europeans despise George W Bush for his 'you are either with us or you are against us' attitude, but the trouble with wars is they are almost by definition manichean. When I read wiffle about 'evolving their own policy', which sounds wonderfully '3rd way' and nuanced, what it really means is 'we are not with you'. And in this case, that means they are against us. Pakistans North West Frontier Province is awash with murderous turbaned lunatics, and until it isn't, Pakistan will have to involved one way or the other.
The more I ponder the relationship of the US to muslim countries, the less I understand muslim antipathy to it. It is so contrary to the facts, so contrary to their interests, indeed so perverse I almost can't get my head round it. But then islam and rationality have never been close bedfellows.
'When soldiers here die fighting the pro-Taleban tribesmen in their border region, there is a debate about whether or not they are martyrs. Some religious scholars say that honour belongs to the Taleban, not to troops fighting their own people.
This time, according to those at the funerals, there was no such ambivalence.
These soldiers were killed by Americans... non-Muslims, said the Imams, bent on harming Islamic countries. "May God destroy the alien forces," they prayed.'
I am not sure how much Barbara Plett knows about Pakistans history, but its interesting to me that she only sees Pakistans relationship with the US in isolation. Pakistan has fought six wars since its independence in 1947, with India and Bangladesh. It clearly has designs on Afghanistan, and believes that it can have a sort of empire if it gets to dominate that country. It seems obvious in the context of the continuing fight for control of Kashmir and the fight to retain Bangladesh in the face of a very strong desire of the Bengalis to have independence, that the bald-faced support for the repeated Taleban invasions of Afghanistan is about national greatness and the desire for territory and control.
And like a petulant teenager who can't get his way, the Pakistani response to their loss of Bangladesh was to cut off all relations with that country; the response to Indias understandable desire to hold on to Kashmir (which was always part of British India) was to underwrite and host an ongoing terrorist campaign against India; and to underwrite and host a series of invading armies into Afghanistan to fight against the very people it pretends to be allied with.
'During my time here, there has always been antipathy to American foreign policy, as in other Muslim countries where the "war on terror" is seen as little more than a war against Islam.'
Ms Plett doesn't bother to try to rebut this ludicrous misconception- indeed, it seems that most BBC employees agree with this conception in most respects.
'A few weeks later she [the US Ambassador to Pakistan] was snubbed by a member of that prosperous middle class while handing out awards for academic excellence. A Pakistani university student brushed past her, strode to the podium and made a 20-second protest speech.
The young man, who is studying at Harvard, became a celebrity. He was praised by the media and inundated with thousands of messages of support.
His moment of defiance was endlessly replayed on YouTube.'
I have railed at the lack of seriousness among British politicians in the past, and their essential trivialness- but this goes way way beyond that. To me, it is almost the definition of stupidity to act repeatedly and robustly against your own interests. But then right across the muslim world, that seems to be deeply ingrained habit.
'America's key relationship in Pakistan has been with the army, especially since 9/11.
Put simply, the US pays the Pakistani army billions of dollars to fight the "war on terror".
US legislators refer to this relationship as transactional but many Pakistanis say it is mercenary.'
And why is the US's key relationship in Pakistan with the army? Ask any Pakistani. Its because its the only institution remaining from British India days that retains its cohesion and utility. The political and legal systems fell into deep disrepute virtually as soon as the British left and have remained riddled with corruption, nepotism, tribalism and venality. So who would YOU deal with?
'...cynicism turned to anger when Mr Bush continued to back his friend, despite a popular movement against Mr Musharraf for illegally purging the judiciary and despite the defeat of the president's supporters in February's general elections.'
Over and over again, I can't help noticing how inconvenient truths are elided from reporting places like Pakistan. 'The judiciary' in Pakistan is not like 'The judiciary' in America or Britain or Sweden. People become lawyers in Pakistan to get rich and to go bat for their familial and tribal interests. Justice and the rule of law are not in the mix. I have seen at least five or six reports on the BBC about 'protests' by lawyers in Islamabad, which managed to get through the whole piece without mentioning that the Pakistani legal system is about wealth, prestige and power and not about the law. And when anybody interferes with the inalieanable rights of lawyers to get rich, they head for the streets!
This piece by Ms Plett straddles two issues; the first being Pakistans relations with the US in a geopolitical sense; and secondly, the opinions of Pakistanis about the United States and its role in the world. On both counts, large chunks of the most important and relevant facts are missing. More than half of all schools in Pakistan teach ONLY the Koran. No math, no science, no civics, no geography, no foreign languages except Arabic, no technology subjects, just the Koran. And you want sensible opinions from these people about international relations? Or even how a tap works?
'Pakistan does face a serious threat from Islamist militancy. But as long as it is the army that is leading the way, with little apparent support from the people, many Pakistanis will continue to see this as America's war.
That is why the army itself is advocating a debate in parliament, so the country can evolve its own policy.'
Many Europeans despise George W Bush for his 'you are either with us or you are against us' attitude, but the trouble with wars is they are almost by definition manichean. When I read wiffle about 'evolving their own policy', which sounds wonderfully '3rd way' and nuanced, what it really means is 'we are not with you'. And in this case, that means they are against us. Pakistans North West Frontier Province is awash with murderous turbaned lunatics, and until it isn't, Pakistan will have to involved one way or the other.
The more I ponder the relationship of the US to muslim countries, the less I understand muslim antipathy to it. It is so contrary to the facts, so contrary to their interests, indeed so perverse I almost can't get my head round it. But then islam and rationality have never been close bedfellows.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Hey, lets win that war in Iraq- oh golly, too late
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7507929.stm
'Barack Obama, the Democratic contender for the US presidency, has said his main priority as US president will be to end the US involvement in Iraq.'
He has also promised end the fighting in Vietnam, Korea, Japan and Germany. In fact, he promised to specialise in doing things that have already been done on every front. He promised to bail out Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, use the Europeans to apply diplomatic pressure to Iran and send a few extra brigades of Marines to Afghanistan- confident that those things have already been done.
What use is Obama, really? I mean, really?
'Barack Obama, the Democratic contender for the US presidency, has said his main priority as US president will be to end the US involvement in Iraq.'
He has also promised end the fighting in Vietnam, Korea, Japan and Germany. In fact, he promised to specialise in doing things that have already been done on every front. He promised to bail out Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, use the Europeans to apply diplomatic pressure to Iran and send a few extra brigades of Marines to Afghanistan- confident that those things have already been done.
What use is Obama, really? I mean, really?
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Obama strategy problem?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/11/newsweek-poll-obama-drops-like-a-rock/
'Last month, Newsweek’s poll surprised many by showing a huge gap between Barack Obama and John McCain, with the Democratic nominee-apparent enjoying a 15-point lead over the Republican. One month later, Obama has lost all of the momentum and has dropped into a virtual tie with McCain. The latest Newsweek poll shows Obama up 44-41, within the margin of error.'
Within a few nanoseconds of being confirmed as the nominee for the Democrat party, Obama started ditching his lefty positions for 'centrist' ones; for 'centrist', read Republican/mainstream. Crucially, he has backtracked on withdrawing immediately from Iraq. My reading of the drop in support for him is that he has lost his USP, his Unique Selling Proposition. When he had the Iraq withdrawal commitment, he had something no other candidate had. Now its gone, he's just another ambitious man who has triangulated. A significant minority of Americans have a rock-hard prejudice against the US intervention in Iraq; for them, Obama was the only game in town. Now he has given up that position, not only are that minority deeply disappointed in him, they are now free to examine his other positions from a vaguely dispassionate viewpoint, and there is at least a fighting chance that they will find his other positions too far left for their tastes.
A significant portion of Americans who are anti-war are not 'peaceniks'. They don't want US intervention anywhere in the world for completely selfish and patriotic reasons: they don't want American soldiers being killed in what they see as extremely remote and hopelessly chaotic places; They don't want US taxpayers money spent on fixing other peoples messes; They don't want annoying foreign entanglements which are then presented by foreigners as America being a bully or a colonial power; They just don't want anything much to do with the rest of the world. In many of the more rural and traditional parts of the US, this is still a very potent philosophy. Obama was their guy. He came across as being against interventions in general, and willing to stop the Iraq one stone dead.
Now he has dropped his Iraq pullout stance, those people will drop him in large numbers- quite possibly enough to lose the general election. The anti-war left are numerically fewer than the anti-war patriots, and will probably stick with Obama because he is still much further to left than McCain, especially on socialised medicine. But a so-far immutable fact about US Presidential politics is that left-leaning candidates lose; America is fundamentally centre right in general terms. In a straight fight between centrist candidates, the more right-leaning one is almost a shoe-in.
'Last month, Newsweek’s poll surprised many by showing a huge gap between Barack Obama and John McCain, with the Democratic nominee-apparent enjoying a 15-point lead over the Republican. One month later, Obama has lost all of the momentum and has dropped into a virtual tie with McCain. The latest Newsweek poll shows Obama up 44-41, within the margin of error.'
Within a few nanoseconds of being confirmed as the nominee for the Democrat party, Obama started ditching his lefty positions for 'centrist' ones; for 'centrist', read Republican/mainstream. Crucially, he has backtracked on withdrawing immediately from Iraq. My reading of the drop in support for him is that he has lost his USP, his Unique Selling Proposition. When he had the Iraq withdrawal commitment, he had something no other candidate had. Now its gone, he's just another ambitious man who has triangulated. A significant minority of Americans have a rock-hard prejudice against the US intervention in Iraq; for them, Obama was the only game in town. Now he has given up that position, not only are that minority deeply disappointed in him, they are now free to examine his other positions from a vaguely dispassionate viewpoint, and there is at least a fighting chance that they will find his other positions too far left for their tastes.
A significant portion of Americans who are anti-war are not 'peaceniks'. They don't want US intervention anywhere in the world for completely selfish and patriotic reasons: they don't want American soldiers being killed in what they see as extremely remote and hopelessly chaotic places; They don't want US taxpayers money spent on fixing other peoples messes; They don't want annoying foreign entanglements which are then presented by foreigners as America being a bully or a colonial power; They just don't want anything much to do with the rest of the world. In many of the more rural and traditional parts of the US, this is still a very potent philosophy. Obama was their guy. He came across as being against interventions in general, and willing to stop the Iraq one stone dead.
Now he has dropped his Iraq pullout stance, those people will drop him in large numbers- quite possibly enough to lose the general election. The anti-war left are numerically fewer than the anti-war patriots, and will probably stick with Obama because he is still much further to left than McCain, especially on socialised medicine. But a so-far immutable fact about US Presidential politics is that left-leaning candidates lose; America is fundamentally centre right in general terms. In a straight fight between centrist candidates, the more right-leaning one is almost a shoe-in.
Friday, July 11, 2008
BBC: seeing the world through Taleban eyes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7501538.stm
'Mr Karzai set up a nine-man commission to look into Sunday's incident.
The commission is headed by Senate deputy speaker, Burhanullah Shinwari whose constituency is in Nangarhar province. He told the BBC: 'Our investigation found out that 47 civilians (were killed) by the American bombing and nine others injured.
"There are 39 women and children" among those killed, he said. The eight other people who died were "between the ages of 14 and 18".'
Over and over again, the Taleban claim that their operatives killed on the battlefield are civilians. When these claims are investigated by credible people, they are mostly discovered to be the lies that they are. Last year was the famous 'team of forty road builders' bombing; this was investigated by Reporteurs Sans Frontier. The road builders turned out to be turbaned Taleban armed with AK 47s and RPGs, and just like many many stories of dead civilians before and since, the real facts never made it into the The Times, the NYT and the Guardian. The BBC website is particularly averse to filling in the story with appropriate backgrounding.
Not once in this story is it revealed that these 'civilian deaths' stories are one of the main weapons the Taleban have at their disposal. It is their stated intention to fight two wars- one on the ground in the NWFP area and the other in the salons of Europe and America. The latter are where public disapproval of the 'Brutal America bombings' can have a discernable effect on the behaviour of NATO countries in dealing with Afghanistan. Why can't the BBC be bothered to report that? Don't they know its true? Or they actually see the world through the eyes of Taleban medievalists?
The grandly and hollowly named 'Commission' investigating these 'murders' was chaired by a man whose constituency is in the heart of Taleban country. He is a Pushtun, they are Pushtun. Many of his constituents sons will have been, or currently are, active Taleban. Why wouldn't the BBC mention this little conflict of interest? If this were a US Senator cooperating with the lies of his constituents, what do you bet the BBC would be all over that like a plague?
Whose side are the BBC on in the war against Islamism and Islamist terrorism and recidivism?
'Mr Karzai set up a nine-man commission to look into Sunday's incident.
The commission is headed by Senate deputy speaker, Burhanullah Shinwari whose constituency is in Nangarhar province. He told the BBC: 'Our investigation found out that 47 civilians (were killed) by the American bombing and nine others injured.
"There are 39 women and children" among those killed, he said. The eight other people who died were "between the ages of 14 and 18".'
Over and over again, the Taleban claim that their operatives killed on the battlefield are civilians. When these claims are investigated by credible people, they are mostly discovered to be the lies that they are. Last year was the famous 'team of forty road builders' bombing; this was investigated by Reporteurs Sans Frontier. The road builders turned out to be turbaned Taleban armed with AK 47s and RPGs, and just like many many stories of dead civilians before and since, the real facts never made it into the The Times, the NYT and the Guardian. The BBC website is particularly averse to filling in the story with appropriate backgrounding.
Not once in this story is it revealed that these 'civilian deaths' stories are one of the main weapons the Taleban have at their disposal. It is their stated intention to fight two wars- one on the ground in the NWFP area and the other in the salons of Europe and America. The latter are where public disapproval of the 'Brutal America bombings' can have a discernable effect on the behaviour of NATO countries in dealing with Afghanistan. Why can't the BBC be bothered to report that? Don't they know its true? Or they actually see the world through the eyes of Taleban medievalists?
The grandly and hollowly named 'Commission' investigating these 'murders' was chaired by a man whose constituency is in the heart of Taleban country. He is a Pushtun, they are Pushtun. Many of his constituents sons will have been, or currently are, active Taleban. Why wouldn't the BBC mention this little conflict of interest? If this were a US Senator cooperating with the lies of his constituents, what do you bet the BBC would be all over that like a plague?
Whose side are the BBC on in the war against Islamism and Islamist terrorism and recidivism?
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Ignoramus takes on evil tyrant
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/28/do2801.xml
I bought the Telegraph for the first time in ages yesterday, and was confirmed yet again in my belief that it has become a cross between Heat and the Daily Mirror. It gave Hugo Chavez a sympathetic write-up and there were many articles about various celebrity shite-for-brains. The Telegraph of old is dead; long live the Telegraph.
This huffery and puffery from Simon Heffer sounds like a typical Colonel Blimp sound-off, but it isn't. There are a number of crucial mistakes in it which lead me to believe that apart from a couple of names, Mr Heffer doesn't know anything specific about Zimbabwe.
Viz, 'Sanctions on his country merely starve those who disagree with [Mugabe]'. Er, there aren't any blanket sanctions on Zimbabwe... just a few targeted sanctions against ZANU (PF) high-ups. The starvation is caused by the complete failure of commercial agriculture (read white farmers), and the use of international (read United States) food aid as a political weapon.
'How proud does the Left, with its stupidly romantic notions of the inviolate nature of "black freedom fighters", feel about what it has so ably helped Mugabe achieve?' That almost completely reverses the actual case. Who was the British leader most photographed with Mugabe, with whom he got on best? Margaret Thatcher. Who was the British leader Mugabe hated because he had a government of gays? Tony Blair. I know this is all a bit counter-intuitive, but it is true. While the lefty morons did spend an awful lot of time in the '70s bigging up all the communist insurgents in Africa (or freedom fighters as they quaintly called them), since then they have almost universally forgotten about and ignored them. They certainly haven't leant any fig-leaves of legitimacy to regimes like Mugabes. Tony Blair and Jack Straw sounded off about Mugabe on a regular basis, not that they are really lefties.
'Frankly, I couldn't care less who liberates Zimbabwe - North Korea, the Taliban or Venezuela are welcome to it: they couldn't be any worse than the incumbent.'
Really? Mugabe may be a detestable dictator, but in world terms he is very small beer. He has directly murdered perhaps 30,000, and by neglect perhaps another 100,000. By the murderous standards of the 20th century, that doesn't even put him in the top fifty murderous dictators. I would love to see Mugabe and his circle of military, political and security services cronies put into the dustbin of history, but lets try to get a little perspective here. The Chinese Communist junta are responsible for way more deaths than that- where is Mr Heffers calls for China to be invaded?
The fact that we are still within thirty years of the end of white rule in Zimbabwe means that even moderately young people have a personal link to that time. To think that an invasion of Zimbabwe by the British army would not be genuinely and legitimately controversial is just dumb. And the UN doesn't do invasions. It may have given its imprimatur to the invasion of Iraq back in 1991, but it didn't arrange it and control the forces. Real high commands have to do that stuff.
'I know what a shock it must be to Leftists of all parties, with their uncritical adoration of African leaders from the saintly, such as Nelson Mandela, to the repulsive, such as Mugabe, to see that sometimes black people can be evil too. But that is the truth.' No, really? What a banal observation. Can Indians be evil too? Or is it just white people and black people?
How is it that people like Simon Heffer get their views into the paper? Especially when they have nothing of note to say about issues they obviously don't know anything about...
I bought the Telegraph for the first time in ages yesterday, and was confirmed yet again in my belief that it has become a cross between Heat and the Daily Mirror. It gave Hugo Chavez a sympathetic write-up and there were many articles about various celebrity shite-for-brains. The Telegraph of old is dead; long live the Telegraph.
This huffery and puffery from Simon Heffer sounds like a typical Colonel Blimp sound-off, but it isn't. There are a number of crucial mistakes in it which lead me to believe that apart from a couple of names, Mr Heffer doesn't know anything specific about Zimbabwe.
Viz, 'Sanctions on his country merely starve those who disagree with [Mugabe]'. Er, there aren't any blanket sanctions on Zimbabwe... just a few targeted sanctions against ZANU (PF) high-ups. The starvation is caused by the complete failure of commercial agriculture (read white farmers), and the use of international (read United States) food aid as a political weapon.
'How proud does the Left, with its stupidly romantic notions of the inviolate nature of "black freedom fighters", feel about what it has so ably helped Mugabe achieve?' That almost completely reverses the actual case. Who was the British leader most photographed with Mugabe, with whom he got on best? Margaret Thatcher. Who was the British leader Mugabe hated because he had a government of gays? Tony Blair. I know this is all a bit counter-intuitive, but it is true. While the lefty morons did spend an awful lot of time in the '70s bigging up all the communist insurgents in Africa (or freedom fighters as they quaintly called them), since then they have almost universally forgotten about and ignored them. They certainly haven't leant any fig-leaves of legitimacy to regimes like Mugabes. Tony Blair and Jack Straw sounded off about Mugabe on a regular basis, not that they are really lefties.
'Frankly, I couldn't care less who liberates Zimbabwe - North Korea, the Taliban or Venezuela are welcome to it: they couldn't be any worse than the incumbent.'
Really? Mugabe may be a detestable dictator, but in world terms he is very small beer. He has directly murdered perhaps 30,000, and by neglect perhaps another 100,000. By the murderous standards of the 20th century, that doesn't even put him in the top fifty murderous dictators. I would love to see Mugabe and his circle of military, political and security services cronies put into the dustbin of history, but lets try to get a little perspective here. The Chinese Communist junta are responsible for way more deaths than that- where is Mr Heffers calls for China to be invaded?
The fact that we are still within thirty years of the end of white rule in Zimbabwe means that even moderately young people have a personal link to that time. To think that an invasion of Zimbabwe by the British army would not be genuinely and legitimately controversial is just dumb. And the UN doesn't do invasions. It may have given its imprimatur to the invasion of Iraq back in 1991, but it didn't arrange it and control the forces. Real high commands have to do that stuff.
'I know what a shock it must be to Leftists of all parties, with their uncritical adoration of African leaders from the saintly, such as Nelson Mandela, to the repulsive, such as Mugabe, to see that sometimes black people can be evil too. But that is the truth.' No, really? What a banal observation. Can Indians be evil too? Or is it just white people and black people?
How is it that people like Simon Heffer get their views into the paper? Especially when they have nothing of note to say about issues they obviously don't know anything about...
Monday, June 30, 2008
Seven pages of waffle
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=1
This loooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggg article about the preparations for a military strike against Iran by George W Bush's White House is detailed but flawed by its assumptions.
Its primary assumption is that there is no need to do what the current administration is doing. There is no need for a military option. Lets just talk!
The author could have skipped all the prattle and just gone with-
'When I spoke to him last week, [Joschka] Fischer, who has extensive contacts in the diplomatic community, said that the latest European approach includes a new element: the willingness of the U.S. and the Europeans to accept something less than a complete cessation of enrichment as an intermediate step. “The proposal says that the Iranians must stop manufacturing new centrifuges and the other side will stop all further sanction activities in the U.N. Security Council,” Fischer said, although Iran would still have to freeze its enrichment activities when formal negotiations begin. “This could be acceptable to the Iranians—if they have good will.”'
Well, they don't have good will. Over and over and over again, the Iranians have said that they want nuclear power (which would give them very easy access to enriched uranium) and they deserve nuclear power and nobody is going to deny them nuclear power. What part of that do you New Yorker morons not understand? For the Iranians, have long, hazy, imprecise talks is a perfect way of passing the time while they get their nuclear processes right. Once they get them right, the talking will stop. Barack can phone Ahmedinejad every day, he won't get talks. Once Nuclear Iran is a fact, nobody will return his calls.
Those in the US military who oppose military action in Iran are participating in politics- something they just don't get to do. The US constitution is clear about who gets to decide US foreign policy, and its not the Joint Chiefs of Staff, CENTCOM or every two-bit Colonel. It is the Presidents prerogative, and secondarily the State Department. The fact is, the US definitely has the power to destroy Irans nuclear facilities, and not only that, it must. Iran is not a country any sane person wants to have nuclear-armed. That does not mean declaring war on the Iranian people, and indeed it means killing very few of them. It will be a big insult to the manhood of the average Iranian man in the street, but they'll get over it.
I would much rather have a nation of indignant Iranians than a sulphurous hole in the ground where Israel used to be.
This loooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggg article about the preparations for a military strike against Iran by George W Bush's White House is detailed but flawed by its assumptions.
Its primary assumption is that there is no need to do what the current administration is doing. There is no need for a military option. Lets just talk!
The author could have skipped all the prattle and just gone with-
'When I spoke to him last week, [Joschka] Fischer, who has extensive contacts in the diplomatic community, said that the latest European approach includes a new element: the willingness of the U.S. and the Europeans to accept something less than a complete cessation of enrichment as an intermediate step. “The proposal says that the Iranians must stop manufacturing new centrifuges and the other side will stop all further sanction activities in the U.N. Security Council,” Fischer said, although Iran would still have to freeze its enrichment activities when formal negotiations begin. “This could be acceptable to the Iranians—if they have good will.”'
Well, they don't have good will. Over and over and over again, the Iranians have said that they want nuclear power (which would give them very easy access to enriched uranium) and they deserve nuclear power and nobody is going to deny them nuclear power. What part of that do you New Yorker morons not understand? For the Iranians, have long, hazy, imprecise talks is a perfect way of passing the time while they get their nuclear processes right. Once they get them right, the talking will stop. Barack can phone Ahmedinejad every day, he won't get talks. Once Nuclear Iran is a fact, nobody will return his calls.
Those in the US military who oppose military action in Iran are participating in politics- something they just don't get to do. The US constitution is clear about who gets to decide US foreign policy, and its not the Joint Chiefs of Staff, CENTCOM or every two-bit Colonel. It is the Presidents prerogative, and secondarily the State Department. The fact is, the US definitely has the power to destroy Irans nuclear facilities, and not only that, it must. Iran is not a country any sane person wants to have nuclear-armed. That does not mean declaring war on the Iranian people, and indeed it means killing very few of them. It will be a big insult to the manhood of the average Iranian man in the street, but they'll get over it.
I would much rather have a nation of indignant Iranians than a sulphurous hole in the ground where Israel used to be.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Even clowns can kill
'We were meant to figure out the guest list for an upcoming party, but she said, “That's a great trial you've got going there,” and off we went, soon discussing our shared frustration with those who persist in believing that youthful goofiness or general haplessness are incompatible with terrorist aims and missions. They never have been with ordinary criminals – that's why most of them get caught most of the time – so why would it be any different with terrorist criminals?
To illustrate this, Rosie mentioned a book she was reading which notes that two of those wanted in the Oct. 12, 2000, attack by an al-Qaeda cell on the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden are also wanted in an earlier unsuccessful attempt to blow up the USS The Sullivans in the same harbour, an attack averted only because the thugs – oh, those goofy kids! – overloaded their small boat such that it sank.'
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080627.blatch28/BNStory/specialComment/home
I blogged about this long ago, but its still one of my most hated Guardian-reader arguments. Being buffoonish and incompetent doesn't mean a) you aren't dangerous and b) that you get a moral pass. It means nothing at all of consequence. Criminals who practise get to be better criminals. Terrorists who practise and get training become better terrorists. How could that not be obviously true?
It partly goes back to the Rousseauian 'Noble Savage', who is governed only by simple instincts and 'doesn't know better', but mainly lefties will use just about any weak argument to protect their 'side'.
To illustrate this, Rosie mentioned a book she was reading which notes that two of those wanted in the Oct. 12, 2000, attack by an al-Qaeda cell on the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden are also wanted in an earlier unsuccessful attempt to blow up the USS The Sullivans in the same harbour, an attack averted only because the thugs – oh, those goofy kids! – overloaded their small boat such that it sank.'
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080627.blatch28/BNStory/specialComment/home
I blogged about this long ago, but its still one of my most hated Guardian-reader arguments. Being buffoonish and incompetent doesn't mean a) you aren't dangerous and b) that you get a moral pass. It means nothing at all of consequence. Criminals who practise get to be better criminals. Terrorists who practise and get training become better terrorists. How could that not be obviously true?
It partly goes back to the Rousseauian 'Noble Savage', who is governed only by simple instincts and 'doesn't know better', but mainly lefties will use just about any weak argument to protect their 'side'.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
What you sow you shall also reap
'"My husband isn't a terrorist," says Nada, shaking her head.
"He worked for a humanitarian organisation. It's very difficult to be a Muslim nowadays. The whole world is anti-Islamic."'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7474794.stm
Why would the whole world be anti-Islamic? I can't think of a single reason.
"He worked for a humanitarian organisation. It's very difficult to be a Muslim nowadays. The whole world is anti-Islamic."'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7474794.stm
Why would the whole world be anti-Islamic? I can't think of a single reason.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Another installment of propaganda
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7451691.stm
'"The settlers gave us a 10-minute warning to clear off from the land," she told me, her voice a tired, cracked whisper.
She and her husband had stood their ground. It is at this point that her voice grows louder.
"They don't want us to stay on our land. But we won't leave. We'll die here. It's ours," she added.
Indeed, the rest of the world regards Jewish settlements in the West Bank such as Susia, as illegal, built on occupied territory.
Those settlements have been a large part of the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis for the last 41 years. The daily confrontation is not often caught on camera. That, now, is beginning to change.'
I don't think anyone can read this whole article, and then look me in the eye and say that the BBC is not anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian Arab. Compare the BBC coverage of China, and what China has done to Tibet with the treatment it metes out to Israel. China has no historic claim to Tibet at all; Tibet has had a long history of independence as a nation; China has asset stripped Tibet and planted millions of Han Chinese in it. The Jews have a strong historic claim to the the land of Israel, which was taken from them by force of arms; the Palestinian Arabs have NO history of independence as a nation; most of the 'occupied territory' is still in the hands of the Palestinian Arabs, apart from what Jewish people have bought from them; there has never been a time when Jews were completely expunged from their homeland.
Yet the Chinese systematic rape of Tibet gets virtually no airtime from the BBC. Pretty much every day, we get another dose of Palestinian Arab claptrap relayed by the lefty wankers of Britains esteemed National Broadcaster. Even the phrasing of the articles sounds like it was written at Hamas Party HQ: "Indeed, the rest of the world regards Jewish settlements in the West Bank such as Susia, as illegal, built on occupied territory."
Really? The rest of the world? Its that clear-cut? It enrages me that I am forced by the British govmt to fund this partisan crap.
'"The settlers gave us a 10-minute warning to clear off from the land," she told me, her voice a tired, cracked whisper.
She and her husband had stood their ground. It is at this point that her voice grows louder.
"They don't want us to stay on our land. But we won't leave. We'll die here. It's ours," she added.
Indeed, the rest of the world regards Jewish settlements in the West Bank such as Susia, as illegal, built on occupied territory.
Those settlements have been a large part of the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis for the last 41 years. The daily confrontation is not often caught on camera. That, now, is beginning to change.'
I don't think anyone can read this whole article, and then look me in the eye and say that the BBC is not anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian Arab. Compare the BBC coverage of China, and what China has done to Tibet with the treatment it metes out to Israel. China has no historic claim to Tibet at all; Tibet has had a long history of independence as a nation; China has asset stripped Tibet and planted millions of Han Chinese in it. The Jews have a strong historic claim to the the land of Israel, which was taken from them by force of arms; the Palestinian Arabs have NO history of independence as a nation; most of the 'occupied territory' is still in the hands of the Palestinian Arabs, apart from what Jewish people have bought from them; there has never been a time when Jews were completely expunged from their homeland.
Yet the Chinese systematic rape of Tibet gets virtually no airtime from the BBC. Pretty much every day, we get another dose of Palestinian Arab claptrap relayed by the lefty wankers of Britains esteemed National Broadcaster. Even the phrasing of the articles sounds like it was written at Hamas Party HQ: "Indeed, the rest of the world regards Jewish settlements in the West Bank such as Susia, as illegal, built on occupied territory."
Really? The rest of the world? Its that clear-cut? It enrages me that I am forced by the British govmt to fund this partisan crap.
NWFP: part of Pakistan or not?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7456019.stm
"Afghanistan has the right of self-defence. When [militants] cross the territory from Pakistan to come and kill Afghans and to kill coalition troops it exactly gives us the right to go back and do the same."
What was President Karzai thinking? That is so obviously not true. According to Pakistanis, they should be able to attack India and invade Kashmir at will, and attack Afghanistan non-stop from the NWFP; but should one American bomb land in Pakistan their sovereignty as a nation has been foully desecrated. They are enormously delicate in their sensitivities to any slight to their nation, while utterly disinterested in the sensitivities of its neighbors. For how much longer this will be tolerated, I'm not sure.
India, growing daily in industrial might and international leverage, sees on its doorstep a shambolic, aggressive nuclear-armed teenager. Afghanistan, a fragile and virtually non-nation nation, sees on its doorstep an opportunist bully fighting itself and everyone else with no regard to the consequences. Both see the nuclear weapons in Pakistan's arsenal as the magical pass-card that allows them to punch so far above their puny weight. For the US, now that Iraq is emerging into proper state-hood, the focus of its gaze will inevitably move on to the two remaining sources of large-scale Islamist power- Iran and Pakistan.
So do you do the easy things first or the difficult ones? Iran currently doesn't have nuclear weapons, and has only second-rate conventional weapons. Taking out their Nuclear sites and the economic and political assets of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard would be relatively easy; removing the big toys from the Pakistanis could be quite messy, and would almost certainly have repercussions in countries like Britain with very large Pakistani minorities. Saying that, it has to be done. Pakistan is a permanent threat to further nuclear proliferation, being one country which has a known and dishonourable record in that regard. Who knows where Pakistani Nuclear know-how will end up next?
At least one thing is becoming clearer- the government of Pakistan is moving away from Musharrafs 'forked-tongue' diplomacy, which involved making a huge amount of pro-US noise while doing virtually none of the things asked of him; towards a plain anti-US, pro-Islamist posture. That will make the eventual conflict much more politically palatable on Capitol Hill and in Parliament. And I do believe it is inevitable. The Pakistani government is responsible for the NWFP, the men who plot their terror ops there, and the Taleban pseudo-army whose staging areas are there. Either that or the NWFP is not part of Pakistan, and the US can get on with destroying its enemies in it. Can't have it both ways guys.
"Afghanistan has the right of self-defence. When [militants] cross the territory from Pakistan to come and kill Afghans and to kill coalition troops it exactly gives us the right to go back and do the same."
What was President Karzai thinking? That is so obviously not true. According to Pakistanis, they should be able to attack India and invade Kashmir at will, and attack Afghanistan non-stop from the NWFP; but should one American bomb land in Pakistan their sovereignty as a nation has been foully desecrated. They are enormously delicate in their sensitivities to any slight to their nation, while utterly disinterested in the sensitivities of its neighbors. For how much longer this will be tolerated, I'm not sure.
India, growing daily in industrial might and international leverage, sees on its doorstep a shambolic, aggressive nuclear-armed teenager. Afghanistan, a fragile and virtually non-nation nation, sees on its doorstep an opportunist bully fighting itself and everyone else with no regard to the consequences. Both see the nuclear weapons in Pakistan's arsenal as the magical pass-card that allows them to punch so far above their puny weight. For the US, now that Iraq is emerging into proper state-hood, the focus of its gaze will inevitably move on to the two remaining sources of large-scale Islamist power- Iran and Pakistan.
So do you do the easy things first or the difficult ones? Iran currently doesn't have nuclear weapons, and has only second-rate conventional weapons. Taking out their Nuclear sites and the economic and political assets of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard would be relatively easy; removing the big toys from the Pakistanis could be quite messy, and would almost certainly have repercussions in countries like Britain with very large Pakistani minorities. Saying that, it has to be done. Pakistan is a permanent threat to further nuclear proliferation, being one country which has a known and dishonourable record in that regard. Who knows where Pakistani Nuclear know-how will end up next?
At least one thing is becoming clearer- the government of Pakistan is moving away from Musharrafs 'forked-tongue' diplomacy, which involved making a huge amount of pro-US noise while doing virtually none of the things asked of him; towards a plain anti-US, pro-Islamist posture. That will make the eventual conflict much more politically palatable on Capitol Hill and in Parliament. And I do believe it is inevitable. The Pakistani government is responsible for the NWFP, the men who plot their terror ops there, and the Taleban pseudo-army whose staging areas are there. Either that or the NWFP is not part of Pakistan, and the US can get on with destroying its enemies in it. Can't have it both ways guys.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Sticking it to the Man
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10980.html
'But Johansson emphasizes that it’s not just young Hollywood coming out. “His support goes across all of America, not just with celebrity endorsements,” she said, laughing. “Trying to find McCain’s youthful core group is going to be challenging. One of the driving forces behind the Obama campaign is that all of these young people who never had a reason to vote before finally got the fire under their ass.”'
I read this whole piece to try to discover what it was about Obama that had so captivated Scarlett. 'Drawn to his candidacy largely because of her anti-war views...' Hollywood Hollywood Hollywood! What happened to you man? I remember when Hollywood was populated with red-blooded patriotic Americans fired by a desire to entertain and become world-famous millionaires living in swanky houses with odd-shaped pools. Now, Hollywood seems to be full of post-modern hippies desperate to diss fame, money, America and in particular "Truth, Justice and the American Way". Scarlett isn't against war- she's against American wars. And she's not against Presidential nominees- she's against Stupid White Men/Women nominees, fuddy-duddy Christian nominees, dumb-ass heartland bible-belt gun-totin nominees. White men in charge is just so last century. Who cares what Obama would actually do- thats also boring nerdy stuff. He would look fantastic on TV, he's an intellectual [midget], and he would never do anything as uncool as hurt any Arabs.
But just like everything else about Hollywood these days, Scarlett hasn't got the courage of her convictions “Even I’m wary of celebrity endorsements,” Johansson told Politico on Friday. “I don’t want to seem like I’m holier than thou. We all have the same right to vote and, especially in this technical age where we all can broadcast our opinions, we all have the opportunity to entice others to vote.”
Oh my God, if she qualified herself any more she'd disappear up her own fundament. Give me Joan Crawford and Mae West any day of the week.
'But Johansson emphasizes that it’s not just young Hollywood coming out. “His support goes across all of America, not just with celebrity endorsements,” she said, laughing. “Trying to find McCain’s youthful core group is going to be challenging. One of the driving forces behind the Obama campaign is that all of these young people who never had a reason to vote before finally got the fire under their ass.”'
I read this whole piece to try to discover what it was about Obama that had so captivated Scarlett. 'Drawn to his candidacy largely because of her anti-war views...' Hollywood Hollywood Hollywood! What happened to you man? I remember when Hollywood was populated with red-blooded patriotic Americans fired by a desire to entertain and become world-famous millionaires living in swanky houses with odd-shaped pools. Now, Hollywood seems to be full of post-modern hippies desperate to diss fame, money, America and in particular "Truth, Justice and the American Way". Scarlett isn't against war- she's against American wars. And she's not against Presidential nominees- she's against Stupid White Men/Women nominees, fuddy-duddy Christian nominees, dumb-ass heartland bible-belt gun-totin nominees. White men in charge is just so last century. Who cares what Obama would actually do- thats also boring nerdy stuff. He would look fantastic on TV, he's an intellectual [midget], and he would never do anything as uncool as hurt any Arabs.
But just like everything else about Hollywood these days, Scarlett hasn't got the courage of her convictions “Even I’m wary of celebrity endorsements,” Johansson told Politico on Friday. “I don’t want to seem like I’m holier than thou. We all have the same right to vote and, especially in this technical age where we all can broadcast our opinions, we all have the opportunity to entice others to vote.”
Oh my God, if she qualified herself any more she'd disappear up her own fundament. Give me Joan Crawford and Mae West any day of the week.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Canadian Kangaroo Courts and Lawfare
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-kafkaesque-show-trial-of-mark-steyn/
"Unable to refute Steyn’s statistics and facts, or to deny that the portions of the article they found most offensive were in fact chilling quotations made by radical Muslims themselves, Steyn’s accusers condemned his “tone,” use of “sarcasm,” and reliance upon “subtle intellectual arguments.” "
A split seems to be forming in Western Societies- a split between those for whom it is an article of faith that those who hate us are entirely right to do so, and who will help them destroy us and our institutions; and those who view not just the highly political Islamists/Wahhabists but all Moslems as the enemy. That is probably the least desirable outcome. When our glorious leaders launched into their response to 9/11 and the awfulnesses of the Taleban in Afghanistan, they made sure to make kissy-kissy nicey nicey with the local 'mainstream' Moslems. President Bush even made sure to visit his local mosque within a few days of 9/11, just to show they weren't the baddies.
Sadly, the evidence seems to show that most Moslems in the west at the very least agree with the Islamists main talking points, and hefty minorities will lie and cover for their co-religionists even when they are planning and performing acts of terror. Far from renouncing the terrorists, the statistics seem to show a gradual drift of 'mainstream' Moslems towards the language and world-view of the terrorists. How will this play out?
If India is any indication, badly. Moslem/Hindu relations have just got worse and worse over time. Since partition, Pakistan and India have fought five wars, and avoided war on numerous occasions when it looked likely to go 'hot'. Partition was intended to PREVENT that, but the Moslem response to being given their own homeland in the subcontinent was to launch 'jihad' from within those borders, and to commit innumerable acts of terror to get 'their' Kashmir back. Numerous plots and series of explosions against Hindu India have been committed regularly over the last sixty years by radical Moslems living in India, born and bred in India, citizens of India. Are Indian Moslems likely to stop behaving like this? The track record makes that highly unlikely.
Same with Pakistani Moslems in Britain and Canada? Highly likely. They are the same people with the same mindset and the same callow indifference to Britons and Canadians. Many observers see the Lawfare being waged by Pakistanis in Britain and Canada as a parallel front in the jihadi war. It is likely to be far more successful than the kinetic war front, as lefty morons in the 'human rights' industry are happy to hand them all the weapons they need to defeat us in our own law courts. When Britain can't deport Afghan terrorists who hijack a plane because of the utterly absurd International Convention on Human Rights we signed up to, what possible hope can we have to defeat local homegrown agitators and provocateurs who use the legal system as their theatre of combat?
As I've said before, the last time a large minority of English residents assisted foreign armies (read terrorists) against the English in our homeland- the Danes- there were anti-Danish massacres all over the country, and eventually King Aethelstan took English armies into the Danelaw and conquered them by force of arms. Do we really want a replay?
"Unable to refute Steyn’s statistics and facts, or to deny that the portions of the article they found most offensive were in fact chilling quotations made by radical Muslims themselves, Steyn’s accusers condemned his “tone,” use of “sarcasm,” and reliance upon “subtle intellectual arguments.” "
A split seems to be forming in Western Societies- a split between those for whom it is an article of faith that those who hate us are entirely right to do so, and who will help them destroy us and our institutions; and those who view not just the highly political Islamists/Wahhabists but all Moslems as the enemy. That is probably the least desirable outcome. When our glorious leaders launched into their response to 9/11 and the awfulnesses of the Taleban in Afghanistan, they made sure to make kissy-kissy nicey nicey with the local 'mainstream' Moslems. President Bush even made sure to visit his local mosque within a few days of 9/11, just to show they weren't the baddies.
Sadly, the evidence seems to show that most Moslems in the west at the very least agree with the Islamists main talking points, and hefty minorities will lie and cover for their co-religionists even when they are planning and performing acts of terror. Far from renouncing the terrorists, the statistics seem to show a gradual drift of 'mainstream' Moslems towards the language and world-view of the terrorists. How will this play out?
If India is any indication, badly. Moslem/Hindu relations have just got worse and worse over time. Since partition, Pakistan and India have fought five wars, and avoided war on numerous occasions when it looked likely to go 'hot'. Partition was intended to PREVENT that, but the Moslem response to being given their own homeland in the subcontinent was to launch 'jihad' from within those borders, and to commit innumerable acts of terror to get 'their' Kashmir back. Numerous plots and series of explosions against Hindu India have been committed regularly over the last sixty years by radical Moslems living in India, born and bred in India, citizens of India. Are Indian Moslems likely to stop behaving like this? The track record makes that highly unlikely.
Same with Pakistani Moslems in Britain and Canada? Highly likely. They are the same people with the same mindset and the same callow indifference to Britons and Canadians. Many observers see the Lawfare being waged by Pakistanis in Britain and Canada as a parallel front in the jihadi war. It is likely to be far more successful than the kinetic war front, as lefty morons in the 'human rights' industry are happy to hand them all the weapons they need to defeat us in our own law courts. When Britain can't deport Afghan terrorists who hijack a plane because of the utterly absurd International Convention on Human Rights we signed up to, what possible hope can we have to defeat local homegrown agitators and provocateurs who use the legal system as their theatre of combat?
As I've said before, the last time a large minority of English residents assisted foreign armies (read terrorists) against the English in our homeland- the Danes- there were anti-Danish massacres all over the country, and eventually King Aethelstan took English armies into the Danelaw and conquered them by force of arms. Do we really want a replay?
Monday, June 09, 2008
BBC dreams up Iraq/Iran Alliance
'The BBC's Jon Leyne in Tehran says that, according to Iranian media reports, Ayatollah Khamenei had a blunt message for his Iraqi guest.
"The occupation forces, who have employed all their military and security power to interfere in Iraq's internal affairs, are now the main obstacle in the way of the Iraqi government and nation," he reportedly told Mr Maliki.
The comments leave the Iraqi prime minister in an awkward position, our correspondent says, torn between his alliances with the US and Iran.'
Iraq has an alliance with Iran? Or is it Mr Maliki who has an alliance with Iran? I think Jon Leyne may have been in Iran slightly too long. If we cast our minds back to the 1980's we might recall a small difference of opinion between Iran and Iraq. Might I perchance be allowed to ask on which side the Shia Arabs fought? Even the hated Saddam Hussein got the Shia to fight for him against the much more hated Persians... Mr Leyne might want to cruise through the history books again on his presumably many quiet evenings.
The day that Iraq forms an alliance with Iran will be a paradigm shift (doncha just love those pundit cliches?) for the Arab world. There is approximately no chance of it. Sorry Jon.
"The occupation forces, who have employed all their military and security power to interfere in Iraq's internal affairs, are now the main obstacle in the way of the Iraqi government and nation," he reportedly told Mr Maliki.
The comments leave the Iraqi prime minister in an awkward position, our correspondent says, torn between his alliances with the US and Iran.'
Iraq has an alliance with Iran? Or is it Mr Maliki who has an alliance with Iran? I think Jon Leyne may have been in Iran slightly too long. If we cast our minds back to the 1980's we might recall a small difference of opinion between Iran and Iraq. Might I perchance be allowed to ask on which side the Shia Arabs fought? Even the hated Saddam Hussein got the Shia to fight for him against the much more hated Persians... Mr Leyne might want to cruise through the history books again on his presumably many quiet evenings.
The day that Iraq forms an alliance with Iran will be a paradigm shift (doncha just love those pundit cliches?) for the Arab world. There is approximately no chance of it. Sorry Jon.
Khamenei focuses Iraqi minds
'Khamenei said Iraqis have to "think of a solution to free" themselves from the U.S. military. Though he did not explicitly mention the security agreement, he said Iraqis not Americans must decide the fate of their country.
"That a foreign element gradually interferes in all Iraqi affairs and expands its domination on all aspects of life is the main obstacle in the way of progress and prosperity of the Iraqi nation," the TV quoted Khamenei as saying.'
"I mean, you don't want to end up like Germany and Japan do you?" He said with a twinkle in his eye...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060900433.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Ok, I may have added a little bit in there myself....
"That a foreign element gradually interferes in all Iraqi affairs and expands its domination on all aspects of life is the main obstacle in the way of progress and prosperity of the Iraqi nation," the TV quoted Khamenei as saying.'
"I mean, you don't want to end up like Germany and Japan do you?" He said with a twinkle in his eye...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060900433.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Ok, I may have added a little bit in there myself....
Seminal issue my arse
'Today in Malaysia, representatives from the West and the Muslim world will meet to discuss what many consider the seminal issue of global concern – the supposed “Clash of Civilizations”.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2096913/%27A-clash-of-perceptions%2C-not-civilisations%27.html
I am reminded of Henry Kissingers withering remark about Latin America. Somebody suggested to him that the US didn't take Latin America seriously enough. He replied 'Latin America is the dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica'. The Muslim world thinks that because its bloody daggers have chopped away at the Western democracies a little that they are now centre stage in world affairs. How sadly deluded. The GDP of the WHOLE Muslim world combined does not equal that of the United States. The combined forces of the Arab states couldn't defeat the Israeli Defense Forces. The combined jihadis of the whole world couldn't budge the US out of Iraq. Since toppling the World Trade Centre towers, Al Qaeda have managed exactly zero follow up attacks in the US. Despite earning enormous quantities of money from Oil, the Saudis were still paralysed with fear of Saddam Hussein- their co-religionist.
Oil is the only geo-strategic card in Islams hands- a hand which they are currently weilding with dexterity of a prop-forward. Sky-high oil prices make people want to 1) drill their own oil and 2) find something other than oil to use. Especially number two will mean Islam has no card to play at all- other than perhaps a one-off mass suicide bombing. Sure, killing innocent people all over the world has raised Islams profile- but at the cost of people really loathing it. Were it not for the 10 kid families beloved of Muslims, Islam would almost certainly be in sharp decline around the world. After all, a religion that comes across as a wacky death cult is not going to play well in countries not already smitten with the Pervy Prophet.
This author is right at least in one respect- there is no clash of civilisations, just a clash between civilisation and barbarity.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2096913/%27A-clash-of-perceptions%2C-not-civilisations%27.html
I am reminded of Henry Kissingers withering remark about Latin America. Somebody suggested to him that the US didn't take Latin America seriously enough. He replied 'Latin America is the dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica'. The Muslim world thinks that because its bloody daggers have chopped away at the Western democracies a little that they are now centre stage in world affairs. How sadly deluded. The GDP of the WHOLE Muslim world combined does not equal that of the United States. The combined forces of the Arab states couldn't defeat the Israeli Defense Forces. The combined jihadis of the whole world couldn't budge the US out of Iraq. Since toppling the World Trade Centre towers, Al Qaeda have managed exactly zero follow up attacks in the US. Despite earning enormous quantities of money from Oil, the Saudis were still paralysed with fear of Saddam Hussein- their co-religionist.
Oil is the only geo-strategic card in Islams hands- a hand which they are currently weilding with dexterity of a prop-forward. Sky-high oil prices make people want to 1) drill their own oil and 2) find something other than oil to use. Especially number two will mean Islam has no card to play at all- other than perhaps a one-off mass suicide bombing. Sure, killing innocent people all over the world has raised Islams profile- but at the cost of people really loathing it. Were it not for the 10 kid families beloved of Muslims, Islam would almost certainly be in sharp decline around the world. After all, a religion that comes across as a wacky death cult is not going to play well in countries not already smitten with the Pervy Prophet.
This author is right at least in one respect- there is no clash of civilisations, just a clash between civilisation and barbarity.
How to piss off 360 million people in 5 minutes
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/wenn/20080609/ten-everett-attacks-british-army-wimps-i-c60bd6d.html
'Outspoken actor Rupert Everett has sparked fury from British soldiers after branding them "whining wimps" who are "pathetic" compared to recruits in the days of Victorian Britain.'
'He adds, "I'm totally off the States now. The reaction to 9/11 and then George Bush - really, they've got very blobby [whatever that is] as a nation.'
Nice one Rupe. Hope you weren't hoping to work in Hollywood again- or Britain.
'Outspoken actor Rupert Everett has sparked fury from British soldiers after branding them "whining wimps" who are "pathetic" compared to recruits in the days of Victorian Britain.'
'He adds, "I'm totally off the States now. The reaction to 9/11 and then George Bush - really, they've got very blobby [whatever that is] as a nation.'
Nice one Rupe. Hope you weren't hoping to work in Hollywood again- or Britain.
A serious piece about Zimbabwe
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/09/zimbabwe
'Robert Mugabe and his generals are fighting together in a deadly battle for survival that has seen thousands of Zimbabweans brutally beaten and maimed since Zanu-PF lost the March 29 general and presidential elections.
The idea that the military has usurped Mugabe's powers and are running Zimbabwe in his stead is erroneous. True, the country is being run by a military junta – but Mugabe is firmly in place as its head. This is a symbiotic relationship – with both sides giving and receiving in equal measure.'
Excellent clear-eyed summary of the situation in Zimbabwe. Possibly the first thing I've ever read on the Guardian website with which I agree 100%. Especially this-
"...Their heartless brutality is in line with the worst tradition of African dictators. The killing fields of Gukurahundi, the senseless destruction of Murambatsvina and the diabolical beatings, burnings and maimings of the past few weeks all bear their personal stamp.'
This man knows his history. Mugabe was never anything more than a murderous tinpot dictator- shame the Guardian and its hordes of witless readers gave him a pass for more than two decades- when he started being overtly nasty to gays and stopped western AIDS agencies working effectively. But then thats the left for you- until their precious hobby-horses start getting shot, they just don't care.
'Robert Mugabe and his generals are fighting together in a deadly battle for survival that has seen thousands of Zimbabweans brutally beaten and maimed since Zanu-PF lost the March 29 general and presidential elections.
The idea that the military has usurped Mugabe's powers and are running Zimbabwe in his stead is erroneous. True, the country is being run by a military junta – but Mugabe is firmly in place as its head. This is a symbiotic relationship – with both sides giving and receiving in equal measure.'
Excellent clear-eyed summary of the situation in Zimbabwe. Possibly the first thing I've ever read on the Guardian website with which I agree 100%. Especially this-
"...Their heartless brutality is in line with the worst tradition of African dictators. The killing fields of Gukurahundi, the senseless destruction of Murambatsvina and the diabolical beatings, burnings and maimings of the past few weeks all bear their personal stamp.'
This man knows his history. Mugabe was never anything more than a murderous tinpot dictator- shame the Guardian and its hordes of witless readers gave him a pass for more than two decades- when he started being overtly nasty to gays and stopped western AIDS agencies working effectively. But then thats the left for you- until their precious hobby-horses start getting shot, they just don't care.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
No Shit Sherlock
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053101927.html
'The Iraqi Upturn: Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war.'
When even the Washington 'la la la I can't hear you' Post admits that its all over bar the odd Al Qaeda suicide nutjob, there's nowhere left to run. Obama and all the other 'Lets Lose this One' idiots are now confronted with the awful truth that their heartfelt desire (with Policies to suit) to lose in Iraq just isn't going to happen. If you read the right papers, you could hope up until a few weeks ago that Moqtada Al-Sadr was going to squeak in at the end and screw up all the good work done by the surge.
But since Sadr City became part of Iraq again, its just impossible to imagine any realistic circumstances where the US and the legitimate government of Iraq could lose. So so many of the insurgents of all flavours lie in nameless ditches or teeny tiny bits, and there are no more willing cannon-fodderees. McCain is now in an utterly dominant position. He held firm and never listened to the morons like Obama who willed defeat, and now that victory has arrived he is standing tall (such as he can) in the winning circle with President Bush and Mr Maliki. I am becoming more and more convinced that that will carry him home in November.
'The Iraqi Upturn: Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war.'
When even the Washington 'la la la I can't hear you' Post admits that its all over bar the odd Al Qaeda suicide nutjob, there's nowhere left to run. Obama and all the other 'Lets Lose this One' idiots are now confronted with the awful truth that their heartfelt desire (with Policies to suit) to lose in Iraq just isn't going to happen. If you read the right papers, you could hope up until a few weeks ago that Moqtada Al-Sadr was going to squeak in at the end and screw up all the good work done by the surge.
But since Sadr City became part of Iraq again, its just impossible to imagine any realistic circumstances where the US and the legitimate government of Iraq could lose. So so many of the insurgents of all flavours lie in nameless ditches or teeny tiny bits, and there are no more willing cannon-fodderees. McCain is now in an utterly dominant position. He held firm and never listened to the morons like Obama who willed defeat, and now that victory has arrived he is standing tall (such as he can) in the winning circle with President Bush and Mr Maliki. I am becoming more and more convinced that that will carry him home in November.
Pakistan Appeasement watch
'This strategy of accelerated appeasement only empowers groups with a history of violence who are devoted to undermining Pakistan's sovereignty. In addition to creating breathing space for extremists (since it is the militants who determine when an agreement is broken), the accords allow a greater flow of recruits to the training camps and further violence. At best, the politicians are shunting the problems down the road--and these problems will be larger by the time Pakistan is forced to confront them.
The new accords are also a threat to the United States. Baitullah Mehsud has told journalists that "jihad in Afghanistan will continue" regardless of negotiations, a sentiment echoed by other Taliban leaders. As U.S. forces in Afghanistan face increased cross-border attacks, Americans at home should be concerned about the increase in the risk of another catastrophic terrorist attack. The 9/11 Commission Report warned that a terrorist organization requires "time, space, and the ability to perform competent planning and staff work" in order to carry out a 9/11-like attack. Pakistan's new accords provide al Qaeda and its allies with the requisite time and space.'
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/169cxzga.asp?pg=2
I wrote about this before, but this article co-authored by Bill Roggio gives the chapter and verse. Very disturbing.
The new accords are also a threat to the United States. Baitullah Mehsud has told journalists that "jihad in Afghanistan will continue" regardless of negotiations, a sentiment echoed by other Taliban leaders. As U.S. forces in Afghanistan face increased cross-border attacks, Americans at home should be concerned about the increase in the risk of another catastrophic terrorist attack. The 9/11 Commission Report warned that a terrorist organization requires "time, space, and the ability to perform competent planning and staff work" in order to carry out a 9/11-like attack. Pakistan's new accords provide al Qaeda and its allies with the requisite time and space.'
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/169cxzga.asp?pg=2
I wrote about this before, but this article co-authored by Bill Roggio gives the chapter and verse. Very disturbing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)