The Noble Pundit

Why Democracy Is A Bad Idea

Solvenia went to the polls today. On the ballot, a measure to restore the rights of ethnic minorities who were "erased" from the country's records following the breakup of Yugoslavia. The measure was overwhelmingly defeated with 95% of the voters voting to deny the existence of the minorities.

"It is a manifestation of racism, intolerance and extreme nationalism," said Tanja Rener, a sociologist. "The mere holding of the vote is a loss for democracy and human rights and a victory for those who preach about blood and territory."

Actually, Ms. Rener is wrong. The vote is an absolute victory for democracy. It is also proof of why democracy is a bad idea -in Slovenia, in Iraq, or America. Democracy is the tyranny of the mob.

The mob voted to deny basic rights to those different then themselves. They have voted to continue having a people without a nation living amongst them. This really is not all that unusual. It is part of human instinct. We tend not to trust those different than ourselves in any way. So given the chance to deny them, human nature will make it happen. America and to a lesser degree Western Europe are abberations in this respect, not the norm. The result of this vote should have been completely unsurprising to all but the ignorant.

This is exactly what will happen in Iraq if we were to institute a pure democracy. The Shi'ites would vote out of existence the Sunnis, the Kurds, the Christians, and anyone else within striking distance of their military. Pure democracy as a form of government is a failure.

What Iraq and Slovenia need, and America and Western Europe has, is a representative republic.

The matter of the rights of the "erased" never should have gone to a popular referendum. Instead, Slovenia needs the rarest of rare people: the Leader.

Not a leader like George Bush who can rally people in time of trouble. Not a leader like Tony Blair who can persuade his people to join an unpopular cause. Not a leader like Bill Clinton who gives the people what they want.

No. They need a Leader like a José Aznar or Yitzahk Rabin. Someone who will sacrifice his career in the case of the former or his life in the case of the latter to pursue a course he believes to be right, good, and in the best interest of his people - despite whatever beliefs they may, in fact, have themselves. True leadership involves making unpopular decisions, sometimes wildly unpopular ones. Real leadership has long term payoffs, not short term ones, which is why it is usually so politically distasteful. Voters have very short term viewpoints. Leaders must look beyond the noise and find the true calling.

The "erased" in Slovenia will never get their rights back through a popular vote or even a Parliament. If a Leader comes along who believes in their cause though, it might just happen.

But true Leaders are incredibly rare. Ronald Reagan came close, I might even be persuaded that he was a true Leader, but I don't think he quite made it. Winston Churchill was a Leader. Neville Chamberlain was not. Israel has had many Leaders in its short history, probably more than all other nations combined in the same time frame. Great leaders abound, but truly Great Leaders are a rare commodity indeed.

Democracy suffers because it is never able to spawn and benefit from such a Leader. Republicanism, whether it be the American model, the British Parliamentary one, or the Israeli model are all capable of taking advantage of the rare opportunities presented by such men. Therein lies their comparative strength as opposed to mob rule.

The ethnic minorites of Slovenia need a Great Leader, not a referendum.

Contrary to the statements of Ms. Rener, the vote in Slovenia was a triumph of democracy - and all that is wrong with it.

What do Moroccans Have Against Spain?

Spain is holding 15 people, most of them Moroccan, over the March 11 attacks.

Plus, a least one of the four to partake in today's group suicide was Moroccan. And several other Moroccans are being sought in connection with 3/11. Starting to sound an awful lot like Morocco is becoming Spain's Saudi Arabia. My question is why?

Are they still upset about the whole expulsion of the Moors thing? The Inquisition? The failure of the Spanish Armada to defeat Britain, thereby allowing the British to expand their dominion through dominance of the seas which in turn allowed for the establishment of the American colonies which after a revolution became free and eventually the world's sole surviving superpower which humiliated the vanguard of Islamic zealotry in Afghanistan?

I really don't know the reason. At least I know that the Saudi's hate us because we saved their collective butt from that pious Muslim, Saddam. But why do the Moroccans apparently have such a problem with the Spanish?

Maybe they insist on speaking Spanish in the supermarkets of Casablanca. That's certainly put some unstable people in Florida on edge....

There Is A Silver Lining Here

I'm sure that there are a large number of people who are snickering at the collapse of the Arab League Summit. And it does have a decent "what were they thinking?" snicker factor involved.

But at the same time, as I read some of the quotes from Arab officials, I have to believe that there might be the faintest glimmering of a silver lining.

Tunisian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hatem bin Salem said Sunday that his government's decision gave "another chance" to the Arabs to resolve their differences. Had the meeting gone ahead, "the summit would have come out with formalities, and regretfully, would have been the subject of ridicule by Arab and world public opinion."

"Certainly this is not one of our best moments," Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa acknowledged. "The Arab system is not in a good shape."

Arab summits of past have always seemed to be events at which Arab leaders would get together, make bold and lofty pronouncements, and then go home, chests puffed out, with nothing having actually been achieved.

But this time, the Tunisians have at least showed some understanding that they needed to come up with something more than just ridiculous statements. They may still come up with some outlandish idea, but at least they are starting to understand that words alone are not enough.

Even the head of the Arab League came up with an observation that, while not surprising to the rest of us, is a breakthrough for the Arab world. The Arab system is in bad shape. Acknowledging a problem is the first step in fixing it, right? Well, it has finally been acknowledged.

Now they may decide that they are in bad shape not because the League is made up primarily of tyrannical dictators and sociopaths but because of the Will of Allah or the Israelis. But, for the moment at least, they have recognized that there is a problem and the opportunity for it to be analyzed and corrected is now before them.

Yes the failure of the summit does have a humorous element to it, but this time there is some reason, however faint, for hope.

Now let's see how they handle it.

If Appeasement Works, Why The Fear?

Luxor Air Banned From Flying in France

Now I'd certainly be concerned if a MD-83 (which is actually a fairly small airplane - holds about 140 people and flies relatively short range routes) came flying over downtown Orlando at 660 feet. But then again, America has stood up to the terrorists and called their bluff. The terrorists want to make us pay for not caving.

But France has, true to their history, all but surrendered. They have paid the Dane-geld. If the precepts of Chamberlain, and not Churchill, were correct what does France have to fear?

Actually, quite a bit. And I think that the French government realizes it, too. That's why they have taken such a drastic action against Luxor Air instead of conducting a proper and just investigation of the flight crew. The fear is real - and so is the failure of appeasement.

The State of Arab Democracy? There's Such A Thing?

The AP has out a wonderful article, A Glance at State of Arab Democracy. Arab Democracy? What the.... Such an animal exists? So I decided to take a little closer look.

Here's the scary thought: Algeria is the closest to a functioning democracy in the Arab world so far.

Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are all monarchial governments. Libya, Syria, Sudan and Yemen are all dictatorships. Egypt professes democracy, but has one candidate on the ballot and he gains a Soviet style 90%+ share of the vote. Lebanon is effectively the southern province of Syria. The Palestinian Authority is a functional dictatorship without a nation. Tunisia is very similar to Egypt and the United Arab Emirates in a multi-monarchial society.

This is not intended to be a slam on any of the governments over there. It's merely pointing out that none of them are true democracies.

The astute reader will also note the absence of two of the big power players in the region: Iran and Iraq. Iran is not even close to be a democracy, but it is also not Arab. Iraq, as we all know, has been a dictatorship up until now, but in a few more months should be becoming the only functioning Arab democracy - whether it will be successful or not is yet to be seen.

The most important thing to remember here is that simply because many of these nations allow the people to vote on parliaments or advisory councils does not mean that they're a democracy.

As of this point in time, the state of Arab democracy is that there is none. Until Iraq votes on June 30 for its new government, it simply doesn't exist in that world.

That is the painful truth of Arab democracy.

Sharon Indicted

Israel is now facing a difficult decision as a nation. The chief prosecutor has drafted an indictment against Ariel Sharon in relation to some long-standing corruption charges. Personally, I believe that a trial should go forward, with some contraints.

Normally, when a national leader gets accused of some minor crime, I am of the opinion that the trial should be postponed until after the expiration of the term of office. The sexual harrassment charges against Bill Clinton were a good example. They were important, but they did not cast doubt on his ability to effectively govern the nation. The investigation should not stop, and should there be something like perjury, then that should be pursued, which is why I was glad that Clinton was impeached.

But a charge like corruption does cast doubt on the ability to govern. As such a trial should move forward and the charges heard and judged as soon as possible.

That being said, since this would be a trial involving a national leader, there do need to be some considerations paid to the fact that he still needs to be able to conduct his business of governing as unfettered as possible. Perhaps what is needed is a time limit on the length of time during which he can be required to testify, or maybe an independent panel to monitor his responsibilities as prime minister and his responsibilities to attend the trial and to make a determination of when the trial is taking too much away from his primary responsibility.

But the trial needs to go forward. The Israeli people have a right to know if Sharon is legally corrupt or not. Corruption is a big deal for a national leader.

I hope that the Israelis figure out how to move this forward. Maybe it would provide an example to the French for handling Chirac.

Freeloading: A Universal Trait

After having spent most of the last six years dealing with one freeloader or another begging my other half for "help" it is nice to see that someone else has a similar problem, albeit on a larger scale.

One overstayer, Muhammad Tam from Nigeria, told Okaz newspaper recently that he had stayed in the Kingdom after Umrah to wait for Haj.

"It is very expensive for me to travel back home and back again to Saudi Arabia to perform Haj," he said.

Now that Haj season has ended, Tam wants the Kingdom to fork out for his trip home as he is currently broke. "I want to go back but I don’t have the money," he said. "I wish they would send me at their cost."

"I wish they would send me at their cost." That is priceless. Poor me crying leeches do exist everywhere, not just around my little neighborhood.

I feel so much better now.

The Effectiveness Of Appeasement

The French have been less than enthusiastic about standing up to the Islamic extremists in recent times, preferring a policy of appeasement to confrontation.

It doesn't matter. They are now reaping the fruits of their labors.

The Dane-Geld comes to mind, yes it does....

UPDATE:

It doesn't look like the German's have done any better with their brand of neo-appeasement. If appeasement can't save you from assassination, what good would it be?

Unrighteous Indignation

Your 16 year old brother gets sent off to blow himself up. When you find out, how do you respond? Do you rail at the handlers who attempted to murder your kin? Do you express outrage and horror at the attempted act? Not if you're Palestinian.

In that case, you rail at the handlers: "The ones who sent him are stupid, because the army will give him two slaps and he will tell them who sent him."

Ah, yes, that wonderful expression of unrighteous indignation.

Never mind that the kid was seduced into attempted suicide: "Abdu told soldiers of his dream of receiving 70 virgins in heaven, which his dispatchers had promised him, and said that he had been tempted by the promise of sexual relations with the virgins."

Never mind that he was paid the handsome sum of 100 NIS (approx US$23). Never mind the sickness in believing that this would make him "a hero."

Nope, nothing wrong there! No if you're brother Hosni, you get pissed because they took your gullible brother who "has the intelligence of a 12 year old."

Given Hosni's response, I am having a little trouble completely buying Mom's indignation:

"Hussam left home this morning to school, and this was the first we hear of what happened," Tamam Abdu told Reuters from the family home in Nablus, just north of Hawara. "This is shocking. To use a child like this is irresponsible, forbidden."

I really want to believe that she is saying it is irresponsible to blow her child up, but at the same time I have to wonder if she didn't mean that it was irresponsible to send him out with a vest that wasn't remotely detonated. Given the warped minds possessed by quite a few, it raises some doubt about the veracity of the statement.

I will be interested to see how the Palestinians react to this latest setback to their cause. This is now the second child who has attempted to hit this checkpoint - and the second one to have failed.

Is there any question as to whether or not the handlers will decide to take care of things themselves? Will they decide that it's just not working to send a child to do a "man's job" (as if suicide terrorism can be called a "man's job")?

Does anyone actually believe that they would even consider self-immolation? Especially when it's that comfy sitting around sending others off to their untimely deaths?

Sorry, but I don't believe that to be in the murderous mindset.

Unfortunately, so long as the bombers families get more upset that the handlers chose the family idiot than the fact that they were murdering your brother/sister/child/parent/etc., I don't really think that anything will change.

Unrighteous indignation is just wrong.

Britain Talks...

...but will Spain listen? I kind of doubt it.

And We Were Worried About Just A Missile...

A few days ago I briefly touched on the events surrounding the damaging of the nose cone on a Trident missile as it was being removed from the USS Georgia. Now I thought that was a bad situation, even though there was never a risk of detonation or even a radiation leak.

But the Russians have taken this all to a new level. Forget damaging a nuclear missile, the Russians are warning that The Pyotr Veliky is in such condition that it may explode. The ship carries two reactors and as many as 10 nuclear missiles (bearing in mind that the Russians were never as big on nuclear safety as we are to begin with).

If this thing decides to go "boom" there could potentially be quite a bit of fallout, both politically and physically.

The Russians need to make a real, arms length assessment of the ship, if for no other reason than for the PR value gained in doing so. If the ship is truly safe, they should have no problem demostrating such. If it is unsafe, it would give them an opportunity to remedy the situation before they lose their Northern Fleet flagship.

Just as the American people deserve a report on the events surrounding the USS Georgia incident, the Russian people deserve an explaination as to the true state of The Pyotr Veliky.

A representative government, which is what Moscow still claims to be, owes its people no less.

Turning Up The Heat

As if the events of yesterday weren't quite enough...now Israel is going right along with the escalation of tensions between themselves and the terrorists. I'm not terribly surprised at the escalation on the part of Hamas - can't really expect any less from such a "charitable" organization. But did we really need Israeli tanks rolling through Palestinian streets already? Preemption is a good thing, but this might be too much of a good thing....

I did see one escalation of pressure that I believe is long overdue. Arafat and his ilk have needed to be on notice that their brand of terrorism won't be tolerated. In going after Yassin, Arafat, Saddam, and Osama it may seem as though everyone is targeting the Old and Infirm Martyr's Brigade, but you can best kill an organism by decapitation. Taking out the leadership is an excellent move as the lower levels of the organization seem to have a self destructive property about them. Get rid of the top and there is no truly capable underlings to take over. Sure there are some folks that have some sense, but the quantity and quality is lacking on the whole.

The next few weeks and months should be interesting as this whole situation plays out. Hopefully this time will be one of the last.

Rhetoric Threatening To Spill Over Into Suicide

Israel did something bad today. They eliminated a problem to their nation, Sheik Ahmed Yassin, but they did it in a very public and violent manner. Hamas, the Palestinians, and Al Qaeda (the usual suspects) are somewhat understandably upset.

This is not to say that the Israelis were completely out of line in removing Yassin as a threat. To the contrary, I believe that based on his previous history, he was a legitimate leadership target in a war that neither side seems to want to really fight in. Three missiles might have been a bit much, but once you're dead, what does it matter if it's once, twice, or three times as dead?

Hamas has come out quite expectedly and announced that they will ratchet up the pressure on Israel, threatening to "get revenge for every drop of blood that spilled." As much as I believe that the death of Yassin will not be a bad thing for the world in the long term, I can understand the degree of anger on the part of the group. Yassin was their founder. He was an important figure in their organizational history. Despite my feelings about Yassin, I believe that Hamas does have a solid grounding for emotional venting.

So long as it stays emotional venting. But that won't happen. Hell, it's already progressed beyond that point. Violent outbursts have already begun and will continue for the foreseeable future.

This, of course, is nothing out of the ordinary in the Israeli/Palestinian civil war. I normally don't believe in the whole "cycle-of-violence" stuff, but I'm beginning to believe that it describes the Middle East situation pretty well. Hamas sets of a bomb; Israel retaliates with three well aimed missiles; the Palestinian people go off on a suicidal rampage. And so the civil war continues.

Except that this time, Hamas seems to be wanting expand at least the rhetorical fight. No longer content with just verbally assaulting Israel, they have now taken their war of the words into battle against the US.

Threatening to attack the US is one thing and not a very bright one. Remember, this is an organization that claims to be a charity. How often do you see the Red Cross or the United Way threatening calling on all philanthropists to join in retaliation against a group they don't like? Calling for death doesn't seem very charitable now does it?

But it is one thing to talk stupid; it is entirely another to act it.

It Hamas carries through on their threats, or they enlist the help of Al Qaeda they will only then realize that they don't have a clue as to what it is like when the Gates of Hell open. To actually carry through on the acts that they are proposing would be to invite Death over for dinner.

If they think that the Israelis came to us asking for permission to execute the attack on Yassin, imagine what it would be like if the US told Israel that it was free to eliminate the terrorist threat in its territories. Hamas, the Al Asqa Brigade, the Palestinian Authority - all would cease to exist in a matter of days. Arafat wouldn't have worry about hiding out like a Saddam wannabe - eating Snickers and leading his head lice (assuming they don't revolt). It's kind of hard to hide in a pile of rubble - at least not while you're alive.

Hamas and the Palestinians have a right to be upset about the death of Yassin. An unnatural death - I wouldn't go so far as to call it untimely - is always cause for despair. Certainly, meeting your end at the hands of three personally targeted gunship missiles can be called unnatural. Mourning and anger are perfectly reasonable and acceptable emotions.

It is only when those emotions boil over into rages of hate that it becomes a problem.

If Hamas keeps fanning the flames and they pour over, it will be a case of suicide by stupidity, or stupicide.

(Also, if anyone can dig up the answer, I'm curious as to what kind of missile exactly was used in the attack. For some reason the idea of "(blank), the ultimate in anti-wheelchair weaponry" just strikes me as morbidly humorous. I must be too tired...)

Profiling Is Bad

Gee, in the past I've supported the idea of profiling as a way to more effectively use of policing and security resources. But then I see articles like this that point out the extremes in profiling gone bad.

Fro some reason, I'm thinking that someone's parents forget to teach them that "sorry" isn't always enough. There are some mistakes that are forever. Assassination is one of them.

The supreme irony here is that there is a decent likelihood that the murderer in this case was, at least once, sprung free by his victim's father. I don't agree with the father's having supported terrorists through providing them legal defense, but this is much too high a price to pay.

The most sickening part though is this:

"We will consider him as a martyr like hundreds of Palestinians killed by Israeli occupation forces," the al-Aqsa brigades leader said...

So, they kill him and, along with a letter of apology, the best that they can offer the family is to act like their child was killed by the Israelis.

What???

The Israelis did not kill this young man. They had nothing to do with his murder! This was a case of hate motivated murder gone bad.

Sorry doesn't make it right. Sorry doesn't make it better. They took the life of another person simply because they believed he was a person whom they hated for purely racist reasons.

Maybe profiling does have some problems....

Another UN Success Story

In the Sudan Islamists have raped 100 women in an attack on the Christian south.

Now the UN is involved in the Sudan, trying to broker a ceasefire in the civil war. A UN official who was in Rwanda (the site of another genocidal success story) has declared himself "totally shocked" at the horror of the ethnic cleansing in Sudan. The UN's biggest concern? Not the lives lost or the evilness of the actions in Sudan. No, they are more concerned that the genocide may undermine the peace talks as they are coming to an end.

So it's ok to murder, maim and rape so long as it doesn't affect the talks? What kind of inane, perverted policy is that?

Why do Sudanese Christians have fewer human rights than anyone else? Is murder not the ultimate deprivation of human rights? Is not systematic terroristic rape not one of the worst violations of human rights? Why does the UN go out of its way to protect the "rights" of oppressors, murderers and thugs, while ignoring those of the Christians?

I'm starting to think that it is a religious bias. The UN seems to be enamored with protecting the rights of Muslims at the expense of everyone else.

In very few places around the world are the Muslims an oppressed minority, denied their basic human rights. In far more places they are the oppressive majority.

Saudi Arabia. Iran. Sudan. Yemen. Egypt. Tunisia. The West Bank and Gaza Strip. Syria. The list goes on of places in which the Muslims are systematically violating rights and oppressing the people.

Yet all that anyone ever wants to talk about is the Israelis building a fence around their territory. We talk about the indignities of profiling. We talk about the horrors of there being restrictions on the numbers allowed on the Temple Mount. We talk about the prisoners - the people who violated the law and are paying society's price for having done so.

Ignored are the Christians of Sudan, Tunisia, or Iran. Ignored is the hatred that spews forth from Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Indonesia. Ignored is the fact, undisputed by the Muslims, that we are engaged in a war of survival for Christianity and Western culture.

These are all inconvenient nuisances to the moral relativists. These are all points to be brushed aside as irrelevant by the appeasement crowd. These are all lies to the people who believe mulitculturalists who insist that we simply don't understand.

But we do understand. Every person with a well grounded moral compass understands. Oh, we might want to believe to siren's song of the peace-through-surrender crowd, but we innately know better. There can be no peace with a group that only seeks your death. None.

The UN still hasn't figured this out yet. The UN still believes that words are the way. In their twisted thinking, a peace agreement that will be violated almost as soon as it is signed is more important than protecting the dignity of the hundreds of women who are raped or gangraped every day by the very people with which Annan's group is negotiating.

A peace agreement with the Sudanese will be like Oslo with the Palestinians. The words are golden; the actions irrelevant. So believes the peace-at-any-cost crowd.

Their song is sweet and their Kool-Aid tart. Everyday fewer and fewer people seem to be able to resist the temptations of their ways.

I fear the day when they finally hold reign over the rest of us. It will be a dark, surrenderous day indeed.

The World Is Getting Scary

While I was looking for things to write about tonight, I noticed something. The world is becoming exceedingly more violent than it has been in the past, at least perception-wise, it is.

We have Syria fighting with the Kurds, with security forces killing more and more of the Kurds.

Zimbabwe has charged the mercenaries from last week with violating their security law by attempting to procure rocket launchers and grenades.

The Nigerian government is clashing with Islamofascists (maybe they can put the scam-mailers on the front lines?).

Kosovo is returning to the days of ethnic violence.

Georgia is desperately trying to avoid an armed conflict with the breakaway province of Adzharia.

The Allies in Afghanistan are conducting Operation Mountain Storm.

The Spanish are starting to discover evidence of an intelligence and law enforcement failure similar to our pre-9/11 failures.

And yet the EU appeasers still haven't gotten the clue. They seem to be more concerned with justifying and passing a "solidarity clause" than actually fighting terrorism.

And, of course, al-Qaeda is making more of their usual threats.

I know the world is a dangerous place, but this is perhaps a little more dangerous than normal. Too many hot spots in too small an area near the global powder keg.

The European Reaction To 3/11?

So here we are four days after the attacks in Madrid and the initial European reaction is starting to become clear. And to say that it is less than intimidating would be an understatement.

High level security talks? Proposals for a "solidarity clause?" A decision to make a decision at the end of the month?

Not exactly a steely resolve to bring the parties responsible to justice. Yes, it took a while for the determination to be made after 9/11 as to who we needed to go after.

But there was no need for a "solidarity clause" to be voted on by Congress. Every state in the Union stood behind New York, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania without question or debate. We did not, as a nation, ask for permission to from anyone to defend our interests.

We just looked at the situation and decided what needed to be done. And we did it. At its root, it was that simple.

But that is not the course of action being taken by the EU. They are dithering and delaying, all the while giving the terrorists more time and more opportunity to consolidate, to plan and to potentially attack again.

Now understand that this is not intended as a criticism of the Spanish themselves. I don't agree that they did the right thing with the election results over the weekend, but in the end my opinion matters as much over there as theirs does over here.

The new Spanish government has a right to show that they have the ability to do what is right for Spain. I don't believe that they will be as stalwart a friend as the Aznar government, but that does not mean that they won't be able to act in the best interest of the Spanish people.

The problem I see is that the new government seems to be more interested in trying to refight the debate over the propriety of the Spanish involvement in the war on terror. There is a big debate ongoing about whether or not being involved in the war will tick off al-Qaida or other Muslim extremist groups.

Unfortunately that is a rather useless debate. The question is no longer how do we avoid pissing them off, but how to we react to their anger? It's like trying to find the source of the fire instead of fighting the fire as the building burns around you.

Prime Minister elect Zapatero has a difficult task before him. He has already stated his intention to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq (but with an escape clause for that promise - a smart move), but he cannot afford to withdraw Spain from the war on terror. The events of the eleventh have brought Spain to the bank of their Rubicon. They must decide what their course will be. Do they turn back and give the terrorists a moral victory? Or do they commit themselves to the war in every sense?

The new Spanish government has a grace period in which to formulate their response. How long is that period? Who knows. It might be a week; it might be a month.

But the EU has no excuse. If the EU wants to pretend that it is on an equal footing to the US then it needs to react to an attack on one of its members like the US would (and has) to an attack on one of its states.

So far, all the attacks of 3/11 have generated from the EU proper is the every feared "scowl of disapproval." Not exactly the best response to invoke fear or deterrence.

(Cross posted over at We The People, a group blog to which I have been invited as a new contributor)

Arrogance & Elitism

Canada is understandably concerned about the recent revelations of a Trident-IV getting damaged while being removed from the USS Georgia a few months back. That's fine. I am concerned also. I can understand why the Navy did not come out and announce the event, but someone in the Department of Defense should have. Especially since no one was ever really put at risk by the accident. It would have avoided the current fallout from the unexpected and heretofore unknown revelation. Had it been announced, there would not be the discussions of a possible coverup floating around like they currently are.

Now I understand that Canada is out ally and that they had a right to know about the issue, just like all Americans had a right to know also. But it really pisses me off when they attempt to lecture us:

"The whole issue of transparency in government is fundamental to our democratic system. I think when something is covered up it is pretty outrageous." (Libby Davies, Canadian Parliamentarian from Vancouver East)

I'm sorry, but that just sounds extremely smug and elitist. You can be upset and searching for answers, but the tone implied in that comment is offensive. Canada's government is no more perfect than ours and Mrs. Davies needs to get off her high horse and realize that.

After this incident is investigated and concluded, Mrs. Davies needs to made a persona non grata on US military bases. In the past she has led citizen inspection teams; that needs to stop. US officials hostile to the United States military have a right to inspect bases as they see fit. That's part of their oversight duty. Foreign officials that are even seemingly hostile to the US military should not be allowed on our bases. The US base at Bangor may affect Mrs. Davies constituents, but that does not automatically confer upon her some right to visit the base.

But in the meantime, I would like to know how in the hell someone managed to leave a ladder in the tube and how it was missed until the missile hit it. I know that I don't have all the details, but that seems like a gross oversight to me.

I too, would like answers. I just don't see the need for arrogance in my demanding them.

The Bombings In Spain

I haven't really commented on the terrorist attacks in Spain yesterday, but I think that they do deserve a special mention.

3/11 will become Spain's version of 9/11. The fact that the carnage and the human toll is but a fraction of 9/11's is a tribute to the effectiveness of the war on terror. The very fact that the best that the terrorists could do was to pull off multiple, nearly simultaneous attacks against an extremely soft target (and rush hour rail service in a major city will always be soft, has to be to move that many people efficiently) really speaks to how weak the terrorists are.

Spain responded today with protest marches, a period of silence and the beginning of three days of mourning.

Since the bombing occured there have been accusations flying around that the Basque separatist group ETA was possibly responsible, but then there are the counter arguments that say that it would be completly out of character for them.

Given the immediate denials of responsibility by ETA and the reaction of the people of the Basque region - joining the rest of Spain in silence and the beginning of mourning - I believe that ETA was most likely not the culprit in this case.

First off, if ETA organized and executed this attack it would be bordering on organizational suicide. If ETA is responsible they will very likely be facing the full wrath and fury of not only the Spanish government, but also the Americans, the Brits, and quite possibly even the French.

If a global terrorist organization like al-Qaida has been made to reel from the onslaught, what could the only possible outcome for a regional group like ETA be? Only complete annihilation.

For ETA this type of attack would not further their purpose in any way, shape, or form. There is no upside, no warning or message that could possibly be sent outside of "Kill me!" No upside; all downside: not too bright.

But when we look at it from the point of view of al-Qaida things make a lot more sense. It is an attack fraught with symbolism. 3/11. 911 days after 9/11. Spain - a nation that has already once thrown off the yoke of Islam. Spain - a nation that steadfastly stood beside the US after 9/11.

Plus it would "prove" that al-Qaida still existed as a somewhat dangerous entity. For the murderous thugs, it could be viewed as a morale boost.

Not to minimize the tragedy of 199 dead and over 1400 more wounded, but if this is the best the al-Qiada can do it only serves to show how far they've fallen. They have gone from glorious suicide missions of unparallelled deviousness to imitating the Palestinians.

Now I am a firm believer in the concept of asymmetrical response. If they killed 199 Spaniards I believe that the Spanish have a moral justification for rooting out these rats by the thousands. If each bomb was denotated by a suicide bomber, they will claim a glorious achievement in having killed 20 infidels for every martyr.

If that's the case, we need to create 200 martyrs for every innocent Spaniard (or Peruvian or Honduran or Pole or Frenchman, Chilean, Cuban, Ecudorian, Colombian, Morrocan, or Guinean) who was murdered in cold-blood on the morning of March 11th, 2004.

This is not a time to be concilliatory. This is not a time to desire negotiations. This is not a time to assume that we can reason with the unreasonable.

al-Qaida understands death and fear. They "fight" for a religion they don't understand. They "fight" for a man who is nothing more than a manipulator of the Jim Jones or David Koresch ilk. They don't understand logic or reason, but they certainly understand that their "friend" met martyrdom as a screaming, bloody mess from the .50 cals that cut him apart. They understand that the contrails high up in the sky mean that tons upon tons of explosive metal are above to indiscriminately martyr them or their friends. They understand fear and they understand death.

The only way we will ever truly defeat al-Qaida is to make it simply too risky to become a member. When potential terrorists watch as their role models are dying not as valiant warriors, but screaming and writhing in excrutiating pain inflicted by an enemy that often can't even be seen, that might help to influence more than a few loons to go off and become sand castle artists instead. Will we influence all of them? No. But eventually the pool of prospects will start to realize that it is they who are dying in horrific ways while the same master manipulators and liars keep trying to recruit them. Eventually the truth of the intent of the organization, the accumulation of power and wealth by a few at the expense of the many, will become painfully obvious.

It is disheartening to think that another nation has had to suffer the tragedy of an attack like this. It is even worse to think that it was a stalwart ally like Spain that was the nation. No one deserved this.

Unfortunately it probably won't be the last time it happens. More friends will suffer and die at the hands of this living evil.

We owe it to the memory of all those who have died to fight the good fight against these terrorists, to protect our homes, our nations, and our futures.

It's Amazing What Some People Still Do

Via Donald Sensing who got it from Sgt. Stryker

As I recently mentioned, I went to see The Passion and like many was astounded at the brutality of the cruxifiction scene (I've still got to weigh in with my overall view on the movie, besides just saying that I was suitably impressed). And like many, I assumed that such barbaric practices had fallen by the wayside - even in barbaric locales.

But no. Apparently our friends in Saudi Arabia still practice it. As do the murderous loons running the civil war in the Sudan.

I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised by the depths to which man will dive in order to inflict pain and suffering on his fellow man. I find it interesting that both nations noted here are Islam. I know they like symbolism, but isn't this a little overboard?

I've never been a big fan of the Saudis, but the fact that they would resort to cruxifiction really makes me question whether or not their friendship is worth the price. We claim to support human rights around the world (and generally do an excellent job of doing so, despite the rhetoric of Amnesty International), but how can we befriend a nation that still does this? Doesn't that support the claims that we are a hypocritic nation?

For me, this is just more proof that we need to dump the Saudis. There simply isn't enough good that comes out of the relationship - even considering the oil. Keep in mind, they need us to buy oil just as much as we need to buy it. If we shift and buy from others instead, it may hurt our economy, but it will destroy theirs (and will probably lead to the downfall of the Wahhabist regime. I'm really starting to believe that even an Iranian style fundamentalist regime can't be that much worse that the corrupt House of Saud).

Cruxifiction is a step too far as far as I'm concerned. It's time to end the facade of good relations with the Saudis.

It's really too bad that Bush 41 had such a "great" relationship with the House of Saud. I think that relationship will prevent Bush 43 from doing what is right.

How To Tell That You're A Failure As A Terrorist Leader

So, you're the tyrannical leader of a terrorist organization. One of your senior advisors - one that was good with the PR BS that you have to conduct with the West in order to keep the funding flowing - gets assassinated while leaving work. What's a good terrorist to do?

Well, if you're Yassar, you hold an urgent meeting and give an EU like scowl of disapproval, maybe even going as far as to call the act "dirty."

Now I probably would have also included the words "dastardly" and "despicible," but then it might sound too much like an episode of Rocky and Bullwinkle.

But what kind of leader are you if the best you can do is to hold a meeting? Yassar is no longer "a man of action." He is now "a man of angy congregations."

It's funny that a sociologist would be talking about the loss of confidence in social institutions when the PA is proving itself to its citizens to be such an impotent, corrupt institution. Why would people lose confidence in an organization like that, especially when it starts taking crisis reaction tips from the EU?

The assassination is a tragedy - no one deserves a summary execution like that - but Yassar's response is comical. It is one of the few ways in which he could have made the situation worse.

Why Negotiation Won't Work

Pravda has an interesting interview with a wannabe terrorist who was caught trying to get entrance into Jerusalem for the purpose of killing Jews. One of the oddities about this particular terrorist is that she is female. But it wasn't the revelation of the "reward" that female martyrs supposedly get (they become a mermaid), rather it was some of the other admissions that caught my eye:

"I am sorry I could not conduct the act of terrorism", she says. (emphasis mine)....

"I was dreaming of making myself a sacrifice for Palestine. Our only weapon - people like myself. Take on a belt with explosives and blow oneself up". .....

What were you thinking when you were going to take the belt filled with explosives?

I was going in a taxi from Jenin to Skhem and trying to imagine what this would be look like. I was not scared - those willing to explode themselves have no fear. I was thinking how many people would die. I was trying to figure out what would happen if I succeeded and what - if I failed. I was calculating how many Jews I should kill to consider this a success and justify my death.

And how many?

As many as possible. When I was in a taxi, I closed my eyes and was dreaming of killing more than one hundred Jews. Two hundreds would be even better. I was thinking only about this. To sacrifice myself to make hundreds of Jews dead.

I have spent part of the last few days reading through Victor Davis Hanson's Ripples of Battle [Buy From Amazon] (which I finally got a copy of) and the first battle he analyzed was Okinawa - a battle famous for its suicide attacks.

In that chapter, he pointed out the abject futility of the kamikaze efforts. He illustrated the complete useless waste of human life. He also pointed out that after a point, suicide attacks only serve to unleash the awesome destructive fury of a mobilized and ingenious West. He pointed out that this not only happened at Okinawa, but again on 9/11. I've got to believe that the Palestinians are fast approaching that point with the Israelis.

Until this attitude of the Palestinians changes, this "I want to kill as many Jews as possible," there can be no hope for a negotiated peace. What's even worse is that the Palestinians don't even seem to be trying to hide behind a veil of quasi-legitimacy anymore - they are freely and willingly admitting that they are attempting to commit terrorism.

Here's betting the Israelis go full bore at the Palestinians, long before the Palestinians accept the right to existence of the Israelis.

The Iranian Revolution Continues (To Fizzle)

Yesterday the Iranians voted their conscience by going someplace other than the polls in record numbers. According to the Telegraph, the Iranian interior ministry is reporting the voter turnout at 50.6%. I thought that in these great revolutionary states, like Iran, Cuba, the Soviet Union, were supposed to achieve voter turnout rates of 99% as a matter of course.

It's nice to see the Iranian people voting by their non-voting. Even the EU has started to take notice that the Iranian Revolution is not a revolution of the people. The less perceived popular support, the less external support and acceptance the regime will be able to fall back on.

I Do Love Irrational Pride

Got to love the Russians sometimes. Two days in a row they couldn't get an ICBM to launch and now they're out boasting about their new smart missile that can maneuver in flight, rendering our missile defense impotent.

Sorry, but I'm not real worried. I realize that the missiles they were trying to launch were older ones, but with the launches being that public, I find it hard to believe that they were just generic tests. Putin had to have believed that there was an excellent chance of success or else he would have put himself in such an embarassing position.

Plus there is a difference between being able to simply move around and being able to detect and react to an incoming threat. The first is simple, the second a much more difficult proposition and one which I find it hard to believe that the Russians, given their current economic state, would be willing to build into a one-time use vehicle.

Of course, maybe I'd feel a little different if they could get a missile that actually seemed to be able to fly straight. This almost sounds a bit like trying to sell a bug as a feature....

Iran Calls For Muslim Common Market

This is lovely. At the opening of the D-8 Summit of Developing Muslim nations, Iran has gone and called for a common market and also common foreign investment rules for the group. The nations in the D-8? Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Nigeria.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but pretty much all those nations, with the exception of Turkey, are not exactly what the average person would view as nations hostile to terrorists.

The idea itself of a common market is great and all, but what are they really going to trade? Oil? Sand? Terrorists? Weapons? Bomb-making techniques?

Look at the nations involved. Turkey and Pakistan are the two most economically advanced in the group, as such they have the least need for the group. Malaysia and Indonesia, if they could ever get the extremeists under control, would be in a similar situation. Egypt is mainly a tourist economy now, much to the chargrin of the fundamentalists. Nigeria seems to excel in fraud better than anything else (I found out today that the scam-mails they send out have an autoresponder that asks for more information. I have an autoresponder set up for the email for this site and I got an autoresponse to my autoresponse. But they obviously don't read too far as they think my name is "blog.")

Iran, I'm guessing, is simply looking for a common weapons market. It's getting tougher to smuggle in all that stuff needed to build the Bomb. Besides, Iran, more than any of the other nations, has a very limited export potential to their economy: oil, sand, or revolutionary extremeists. I'm guessing that Iran is simply looking to lower the tarriffs on imports so that they can free up more hard currency for their North Korean nuke techology.

And I'm not really sure how Bangladesh might fit into all this. I honestly don't know enough about the country to have any idea as to what they might produce or need, and therefore can't really determine how they might fit into a common Muslim market.

Maybe I shouldn't be so cynical about this. Maybe I should look for the positive, that Iran is making some of sort of attempt to act in a normal, responsible manner. But I look at the news that has been coming out of these nations over the last few years and I really have to wonder....

Looks Like The Cold War Isn't About To Heat Up Again - Yet...

The military manoeuvres are said to be the biggest to take place in the post-Soviet period.

You know, in a way this should make me happy, given recent events in my life. A return to an arms race like we had particularly during the Reagan years would be extremely beneficial to me.

But instead, I'm feeling a little bit of relief that the Russians can't get their sub launched ICBMs to fire right with now a second misfire in as many days.

I really kind of grew up during the Reagan years, the end of the Cold War. I remember, as a kid, looking to the sky and wondering if the missiles were already in flight (I thought about a lot of weird things for a kid. Many of them were probably weird for an adult to, but that's beside the point). I remember the first time I saw the B-1B bomber and the pilot was boasting that his plane was the reason we could sleep soundly at night. I remember quite a bit about the fear that the Cold War could instill in an impressionable kid.

I don't want that for my kids.

I don't want them to fear MAD (I only want them to fear me when I'm mad). I don't want them to truly understand the book Alas, Babylon. I don't want them to know what it is like to live knowing that another nation has enough nuclear warheads pointed at you to annihilate your country 10 times over.

I don't want them to know another Cold War.

What concerns me is that the Russians seem to be thinking that they might be able to play a bit of catch-up here. It almost seems as though they think the technological gap is small enough that they might be able to close it. That's not good.

That is the effect of the massive defense cuts we've had. That's the effect of our not continuing to push the envelope. Reagan proposed a 600 ship Navy; we're now on the brink of having less than 300 ships at sea. The Army, the Marines, the Air Force: they're all stretched to their limits also. Our front line fighter jet, the F-15, is Vietnam Era technology. Our premier standoff weapon, the Tomahawk cruise missile, is old enough to have played a role in Tom Clancy's book Red Storm Rising (a book copyrighted in 1986).

It may be too late, but we need to make a more serious commitment to our national defense. Our greatest advantage is the technology gap we've created. It must be maintained. Our soldiers are the best in the world. Don't they deserve the best weapons we can give them?

How Many Different Laws Are There?

First we had the violations of international law. And we had war crimes violations (which implies a law of war). Now we have the Red Cross trotting out violations of "humanitarian law" as a way of trying to force Israel to tear down the West Bank Wall.

Funny, but I don't remember having studied about the humanitarian violations of the Berlin Wall. I don't remember reading about the UN General Assembly taking the Soviet Union to the International Court in the Hague to gain a non-binding resolution that the Iron Curtain should come down. So why does this seem that it is just some fabricated appeal to the utopians who believe that the law should exist and is required to be followed, regardless of its existence.

But probably the most offensive part of the whole article was this:

The ICRC said it recognized the right of Israel -- which says the barrier is meant to stop suicide bombers and has already thwarted dozens of attacks -- to take measures to defend the security of its own population.

And ICRC official Balthasar Staehelin said that if the barrier were moved back to the Green Line -- the boundary before Israel seized the West Bank in the 1967 Middle East War -- "that would solve many of the problems as far as we are concerned."

Has this man got no clue? Does he not comprehend the stated goal of most of the terrorist governmental and chartiable organizations over there, to throw the nation of Israel back into the sea? Moving back to the Green Line would solve many of the ICRC's problems, but certainly wouldn't make anything any better for Israel. In fact, it would only serve to make the country less defensible.

Plus, that offer was basically already made by Israel. It was the Palestinians who rejected it. It was the Israelis who have made every serious overture, most of the unilaterally, for peace. It is the Palestinians who keep the human bomb factories running day and night.

The Red Cross is supposed to be a neutral organization, but it is starting to act otherwise. If they are not careful, the ICRC is going to squander their facade of humanitarianism to become nothing more than another politically motivated entity.

We're Heading For Nuclear Destruction???

One more quickie before I head out the door for work.

World May Be Headed for Nuclear Destruction-ElBaradei

Gee, isn't it supposed to be a part of his job to help staunch the proliferation of nuclear weapons? He's out there complaining about proliferation, but what are his solutions? Make it "impossible" to withdraw from NPT? Strengthen inspections and export controls?

Doesn't he realize that anyone serious about building a Bomb is going to laugh at these proposals? It's kind of like throwing a single bucket of water on a burning skyscraper.

Maybe I would feel better if he were suggesting inspections enforced by the threat of force. Maybe I would feel better if he were suggesting to involuntary elimination of suspected nuclear proliferation sites. Maybe I would feel better if his organization had any kind of track record worth feeling better about.

I fear that Dr. El Baradei's prophecy is accurate, but that he is absolutely the wrong person to try to change it.

Does The UN Not Study Its Own History?

A UN envoy in Iraq has agreed in principal with a Shi'ite Ayatollah that Iraq should suffer direct elections, altough he did indicate that conditions must be right.

Has he not looked at the General Assembly to see how a direct democracy functions - or more correctly, fails to? Has he not seen the injustices that eminate from that august body? Does he not realize that replacing Saddam with a direct democracy is simply replacing one big tyrant with many little ones?

On anything outside of small, local issues, a direct democracy is a recipe for failure. The US government would most certainly fail if we were to change from a Republic to a direct democracy. Technically, it is feasible. But we would lose sight of our ideals. The tyranny of the majority would ignore the lofty goals set by the Founding Fathers in an effort to satisfy an immediate desire. For anyone not in the majority - which will be everyone given the breadth of issues facing us today - life in a direct democracy would be every bit as oppressive as life in Castro's Cuba or the theothugs Iran.

The Greeks proved the ineffectiveness of a direct democracy over 2000 years ago. The UN General Assembly is consistently reinforcing many of the downfalls of direct democracy - most notably the oppression of the minority by the majority. For a UN envoy to be nearly totally ignorant of those lessons is appalling.

If we want Iraq to become a more tolerant society, with protections for minorities similar to what we have in the US, we need to stick to our plan to introduce the Iraqi people to a republican form of government.

Otherwise, we are just reloading the powder keg.

French Military Sales Must Be Down

For Saddam to get captured in his tiny little hole must have really been a blow to Jacques Chirac, as he is now going to push for a lifting of the arms embargo on China.

He claims that the embargo, placed in response to Tiananmen Square, "makes no more sense today."

I guess we really shouldn't be too surprised. Human rights violations are not of great concern to Chirac, unless he can somehow figure out a way to pin them on the United States. He thought that Saddam was fine, and now he is implying that China has reformed its violating ways.

Very little has really changed in China. There are still rampant human rights violations taking place. Look at the current media articles coming out of the region. Remember, this is the country that still has forced population control. But there are certainly no human rights violations taking place....

If Chirac wants to lift the embargo, that's fine. Some things have changed since 1989. Maybe there is a valid reason to lift the embargo (although it would almost certainly intensify the Far Eastern arms race). A debate would not necessarily be a bad thing. But in any discussion, there must still be a recognition and debate about the state of human rights in China. Anything less would be intellectually dishonest.

Chirac seems to be once again demonstrating that he is more interested in selling weapons to whomever, rather than holding true to his rhetoric on human rights.

When Relativism Goes Too Far

A bioethicist in the UK - one on the board of the British Medical Association - has declared that there is no difference between aborting a full grown fetus or killing a child who has already been born if they have birth defects. Given that abortion is legal in the UK he is essentially calling for, as the cartoon South Park once put it, retroactive abortion.

He claims that the retro-abortion should be legal only "soon" after the child is born. Who defines soon? Who defines what exactly constitutes a defect qualifiying of retro-abortion? Will it only be the parents that are able to decide, or will any medical professional be able to decide it would be in the person's best interest to be retro-aborted? How soon after birth is soon? A couple days? A couple decades?

This is absolutely ridiculous. What the doctor is proposing is the legalization of murder. He may want to try to twist the truth to make it more palatable, but in the end, murder is still murder.

To think that this guy is a bioethics professor, along with being a member of the BMA ethics committee, is appalling. If he cannot understand the moral implications of murdering children that some might find to be, errrr, undesirable tells me that he has no moral compass whatsoever. The last group to follow through with the elimination of "undesirables" was the Third Reich. Certainly only a very, very few would believe that Himmler and Hitler had the right idea, yet this loon is suggesting implemenation of a small portion of their plan.

Ignoring the moral questions surrounding abortion, there most certainly are serious moral implications associated with retro-actively aborting children. No amount of relativism can change the fact that murder is wrong. To say or suggest otherwise demostrates a sinister streak a mile wide.

I hope, I hope, I hope that this guy comes out and explains how this is all some big misunderstanding, but for some reason I don't see it happening. Too bad that some people just seem to believe that murder should be ok.

Legalizing Sex

Ireland has announced plans that during their turn in the EU Presidency they plan to introduce a measure to ban paying for sex throughout the EU. Specifically, one of the proposals would remove some of the various porn groups, like Swedish-based Private Media Group, from the EU stock exchanges.

I have no problem with trying to restrict obscene emails. I'm even ok with restricting prostitution in the EU (although I have much stronger philosophical issues with that). But for the government to come in and deliberately order the delisting of a company is over the line.

When an investor is researching an international stock for possible inclusion into a portfolio they examine two seperate categories of risk: company and country. The company risk is the normal risk that we associate with every company, i.e.: are they making money? Do they have good management? etc....

Country risk, on the other hand, takes into account governmental interference in the capitalist market. In other words if a nation is prone to nationalization or arbitrary delisting of unpopular industries for political purposes then it will eventually lead to a higher cost of capital for all companies engaged in any business in that particular nation. With the global economy becoming more and more interconnected, this seemingly industry specific assault will have much broader, unintended consequences.

If the EU truly wants to rid itself of the porn industry (which I'm not sure is a good move. Yes, it is undesirable and distasteful, but it also employs a large number of people and has a massive customer base. Say what you will about it, but the purchasers of porn are legion.) then they need to start by outlawing the content, not the company. If a company like Private Media can survive under the new laws of legality, then so be it - give them credit for adaptabilty. If not, they'll wither away on their own without the worst consequences of government interference in the market.

I don't think it's right to try to legislate morality, but if the EU wants to try, more power to them. Better for them to try than for us to experiment.

I just hope that they don't really screw it up and accidently invoke the laws of unintended consequences.

Are The Chinese Headed For A Crash?

The CIA has released a report warning that China could be headed for a "crash" in the near future (link to the CIA report instead of a summary).

I tend to think along similar lines and could see an invasion of Taiwan as a reaction to a worsening domestic situation in mainland China. I also think that such an event could be the catalyst to a major conflict in the Pacific. That would certainly not be a good situation, to say the least.

I found the article originally on Free Republic and I thought that one commenter had an interesting comment:

If China becomes economically unstable, how in the hell would it help solve the problem by unifying with Taiwan by force? (question posed in an earlier comment)

That won't do anything but accentuate the crash and extend it into the distant future. But, as you mention, it would distract the populace from their bankruptcy. China has chosen to buy the large military items, especially Navy ships, rather than create an infrastructure to build them internally. This might indicate that China has short-term military goals and perhaps they don't plan for a necessity for a long-term projection of force through the Navy. They may be relying on their nuclear deterrent to keep China safe from major foreign powers. China's industrial expansion would be limited by two factors. One, China is a little short of oil. Two, the rest of the world might tire of buying cheap plastic electronic toys.

Posted by RightWhale, comment #13

I think that it is a very interesting point that China is buying technology rather than developing it. I hadn't really considered that point, but it does bear some serious consideration and thought about why they might be doing this. After all, their only real, substantial threats by water would be the US, Australia, or Britain and the latter two don't seem to come into conflict with mainland China anywhere near as much as we do. So why buy a navy?

If China really does experience a wreck, the worldwide ramifications could be substantial. Maybe the CIA is wrong with this assessment, and I certainly hope they are, but I'm also glad to see that they're considering and surely planning for the possibility.

What Is Moammar Up To?

This is interesting. Libya approached the US and Britain about dismantling some of its weapons programs, in an unconditional and verifiable manner. Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but what is Moammar up to?

I know that he's been trying to rehabilitate himself in the world community. I know that he took responsibility for Pan Am 103. I know that this is a momentous step forward for him, and one that's fraught with risk. But why is he doing it?

I know he wants to have sanctions lifted and that he wants to distance himself from the spectre of international terrorism. But it seems to me like the man is beginning to protesteth too much.

I'll give Moammar credit. More than any other Arab leader he seems to catch the direction of the winds in Western politics. He seems to be able to strike just that right balance where he's a thorn in the West's side, but not enough to warrant any real action (since 1986, at least).

But the spotlight isn't on Libya right now. It is focused on Syria and Iran. There was no real pressure on Moammar to conform to international norms as no one really viewed him as a significant threat at the moment. There was no great outcry for him to surrender his weapons programs. So why do it?

I worry that Moammar is one of the better manipulators of the region. He may have recognized, particularly after the recommencement of hostilities in Iraq, that he has no earthly hope of truly threatening the West - at least not through conventional means, or even conventional unconventional means, like chemical, biological, or nuclear programs. Surely he's realized that the most effective manner for threatening the West is through small, al-Qaida like, plausibly deniable terrorist cells.

But finding funding for those types of cells isn't easy, even for Moammar. So how to free the money from the treasury while winning Western brownie points?

Dismantle your weapons programs. Or even better yet, bring in the inspectors, find a way to cry poormouth, and get the West to fund the dismantlement themselves - all in the name of good global citizenship, of course.

Pretty Machiavellian, but not a bad idea if you're in Moammar's position. So how should we react?

I say, play the fool. If he asks for money to dismantle the programs, find a way to fund it. But unlike the fool, we need to step up our monitoring to make sure that he's not ramping up terrorist production. Give him a little benefit of the doubt - he has been trying for a while to rehabilitate. Trust, but verify need to be the watchwords of the day, and the best way to effect that is through engagement.

He wants the sanctions to be lifted? Lift them. Let his kingdom get exposed, for good or for bad. Let his people meet with, work with and deal with Westerners and Americans on a daily basis. Perestroika didn't work too well for the Soviets, and chances are Moammar won't fare much better.

I want to believe that this is a step in the right direction. I want to believe that Moammar is truly committed to becoming a functional member of world society. This could be one of the great bloodless victories of the war on terror.

If Moammar is being honest in his intent. Trust, but verify.

Arafat Won't Be Celebrating Christmas This Year

The Arab News is reporting thatIsrael has again Barred Arafat from making a trip to Bethlehem for Christmas. More specifically, they said he could go, they just couldn't guarantee that he could return to Ramallah.

For some reason, I just don't see Yassar as the kind of guy who has the spirit of Christmas in his heart. The holiday is already commercialized enough as it is, we certainly don't need it to become politicized anymore than it already is. If Yassar has to stay home and doesn't get to participate in the festivities, well that's just fine. It's not like he's a Christian. He's probably just going to look for a gift from the EU anyways.

I know that I'll be one very disappointed Christian when I don't see Yassar's terrorist mug staring back at me this year in the televised services at the Church of the Nativity. Very, very disappointing, indeed.

As an aside, I'm curious as to what possessed the Arab News to chose to run the particular picture they did in conjuection with this article. They're taking about Arafat and Bethlehem, yet run a picture of a kid shot with a rubber bullet in Balata. What gives with that?

Should Saddam's WMD Equal Life For Him?

DEBKAfile is speculating that Saddam will try to trade his WMD secrets for his life. Personally, I don't particularly care for the idea, but DEBKA does throw out some interesting scenarios regarding Assad of Syria.

DEBKA is working on the assumption, gathered from their sources, that the US has a reasonably good idea as to the general location of the weapons in the Syrian desert. This would, of course, complicate the search for the WMD and could be a reasonable explanation as to why none have turned up in Iraq so far.

But is confirmation of our suspicion sufficient grounds for letting Saddam live? In my opinion, no. Look back at the mass graves. Look back at the pictures of kids of Halabja. Think back to the horrors of his torture chambers. Does the man whose government used a people shedder really deserve to live out the rest of his life in a natural manner after he unnaturally ended so many others? I don't think so.

But the decision is not mine to make. If Bush and Co. decide that trading Saddam his life for accurate information then so be it. That's why they get paid the big bucks for making decisions and I sit here pontificating for free.

Perhaps the capture of Saddam can lay the groundwork for the fall of the Syrian dictatorship. Perhaps. If we try to trade life for information, I certainly hope it does.

I said yesterday and I'll say it again, we have an obligation as Americans to conduct our affairs surrounding Saddam with a higher standard than the norm in the region. Machiavelli cannot be our guiding author. We must hearken back to the ideals of Jefferson and the other Framers. It would be great to use Saddam to bludgeon Syria into compliance with the world standards surrounding WMD possession and then still execute him. But it's not right. We cannot let the ends justify the means in this case.

I believe that our intelligence community could locate the WMDs without the help of Saddam, which is why I believe that we should not bargain away any possible consequence - death included.

Defending Saddam

I know that a bunch of people are going to rip on these two lawyers, but they are right. If we intend for Saddam's trial to be considered fair, he must have reasonable counsel and should be allowed the presumption of innocence.

No matter how blatent and obvious his crimes (and you'd have to have been dead for the past 35 years not to be aware of them), he still should be afforded all the protections normally given to common criminals. The prosectution should have no problem proving his guilt beyond any sort of reasonable or even unreasonable doubt.

Give him a fair trial and then take care of business. If these two think that there is any sort of defense against the charges that will be brought against Saddam, then they should defend him.

They will fail and Saddam will swing, but such is the fate of the tyrant. Tyrant, terrorist, or thief, we still owe it to ourselves (not to him) to do things right.

Saddam Broken?

Via Drudge.

Reuters is now reporting that Saddam Hussein may have broken and begun telling his interrogators useful information. I especially love the comment that "He felt safer with the Americans."

It's too bad that he is such a pathological liar that most of the information he gives us will have to corraborated before it can be acted on. If he has truly broken it could be potentially an intelligence goldmine.

"Psychologically runied and very demoralized." I can think of no better state for the man to be in.

The Arab Humiliation That Is Saddam

You just knew that it wouldn't be long before the gnashing of teeth began about the humiliation of Saddam's capture. It is the humiliation endured by Saddam that they all vocally deplore, but it is their own personal sense of humiliation to which they are truly referring.

Now I can understand there being a degree of shame associated with the capture of your national leader. Regardless of just how evil the man was, for many Iraqis he was the only leader they ever knew. A sense of shame and/or humiliation is not only reasonable, but to be expected to a degree.

What concerns me more, however, is the constant expressions of discontent with his Saddam's "last stand." Regardless of the shame of Saddam's capture they should take solace in the fact that Saddam will get a fair trial - and a correspondingly fair punishment. But, to this point, the concept of fairness is still unknown.

Guilt is a societal issue, not a personal one in the Middle East. A trial of Saddam is feared not because it might detail out his crimes, but because it will rehash his crimes in a public manner, reminding the people of what they allowed to occur. Saddam's guilt is viewed as all of their guilt and they still wish to remain in denial that there was ever a real issue.

And so they decry Saddam's capture. They complain that he lost the nerve to commit suicide. They despair that he hadn't the nerve to stand up to the Americans. They rail against the 4th ID for taking him alive. So upset are they that Saddam is still alive, that they accuse the Americans of using non-lethal weapons to capture him.

They simply cannot accept that it is possible that Saddam was more fearful of death and the afterlife than he was of facing the Americans and the Iraqi court. They do not want to face the fact that they allowed a murderer within their mist. And they most certainly don't want to admit that their "fearless leader" might have actually been human.

Some Arabs are starting to realize with the capture of Saddam that the US has taken a different stance than years past. We are engaged and in for the long haul. This bothers them. They want to pretend that his death in a "blaze of glory" might have precluded us from taking this stance. But in doing so, they fail to recognize that the actual shift in US policy took place in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Saddam was irrelevant, dead or alive; suicide, execution, or death in battle. We are in the Middle East, for good or for bad, until such time as we feel that they have come far enough along that another Saddam or Osama or Mullah Omar is extremely unlikely to ever be spawned by the region again.

Saddam's capture by the Americans is and should be a humiliation for the Arab world. Not because of the way in which he was apprehended, not because of the lack of fight in him, not because of a lack of machismo on his part, but rather because they allowed him to persist in his reign of terror against his own people, his neighbors, and the region. They should be humiliated simply because it took the Americans to come in to police their own.

The capture of Saddam should be an Arab humiliation, just not for the reasons they proclaim.

A Sampling Of Arab Reaction To Saddam's Capture

Being the curious sort I am, I decided to go over and take a look at the Arab reaction to Saddam's capture as reported in the Arab News. The page is very slow to load, but it is interesting nonetheless.

At first, the article has all the expected quotes of praise from various officials. But towards the end there are a couple of interesting quotes:

"It is happy news but we wish it were the Iraqi people who had captured him, not US troops, because this will give Bush a boost in the upcoming election," said Bahraini salesman Hussein Jaafar.

"I don't like Saddam, but as an Arab I wouldn't like to see them (Americans) dragging him around Baghdad," said Syrian student Abdul-Nasser.

The first quote is interesting, but not really all too surprising. I've seen quite a few Americans making very similar statements. The "I Hate Bush"™ crowd is working itself into an absolute fit over the capture.

The second quote is the one that really, I think, highlights a big problem in our relationship with that part of the world. Remembering history is one thing. Trying to live in a historical era that no longer exists is another.

Christians already have to overcome the Muslim perception that we are on a perpetual Crusade. They never acknowledge that the Crusades ended hundreds of years ago. We no longer fight a Crusade, but because the Muslim world will not accept or acknowledge that fact, we must constantly fight the perception that we are Crusaders.

The second quote harkens back, not to the Middle Ages, but rather two millennia to ancient Rome. Rome used to hold triumphs in which captives were paraded around captured cities and/or Rome for public spectacle.

America does not do that. Yet we have to fight the perception that in our triumphs, we will be holding a Triumph. There is no recognition of a difference between the subjugation of Vespasian and the liberation of Bush. There is no realization that we are not there to dominate.

How many misunderstandings between our two cultures are rooted in this persistence? Probably more than a few.

Looking back for historical parallels or historical guidance is never a bad idea, but life still has to be lived in the present.

America has not paraded Saddam and is not going to. He will be treated with the respect and dignity to which he has shown himself to be singularly unworthy of. It's too bad that large swaths of Islamic society will ignore that fact in their zeal to find the proof of the new Christian Crusade or of Roman style Imperialism.

History is history.

Do They Never Learn?

As I mentioned earlier, I went down to my parents' house tonight. One of the occasional benefits of doing so is that I get to read through one of my favorite magazines, Aviation Week & Space Technology. Tonight, my Dad gave me last week's issue to take home with me.

So as I'm reading through it, I come across an article on pg. 34, titled "Planning Ahead: Washington again hits back at European military HQ scheme - but more lightly." (sorry, no link found on the Aviation Week site - and even if it was there it would require a subscription)

In the article was this line, which I found to be most interesting:

"The three nations [France, Britain, and Germany] also agreed that select countries could forge defense ties beyond those desired by the EU at large, as in the case of the Euro zone, and that the EU could provide a mutual assistance guarantee in the event of an external threat." (emphasis mine)

A mutual assistance guarantee? Weren't those part of what dragged all of Europe into World War I? Wasn't it a mutual assistance guarantee what brought France and Britain into conflict with Hitler's Germany when he invaded Poland in 1939? This isn't to say that the pacts are evil, but they haven't exactly been real effective as a deterrent. If they haven't worked in the past what makes this time so different? Why would someone still want to use them when they have done nothing but rapidly expanded previous conflicts?

Even NATO has been less than wonderful in this regards. A guarantee is only as worthwhile as the nation or organization granting it. Britain, Spain, Australia, Poland and others backed up their rhetoric in the aftermath of 9/11. NATO to a small degree and France and Germany totally shrank back. Their guarantees, their promises were worth squat. If France and Germany are really pulling the marionette strings in the EU why would anyone put any faith in a mutual assistance guarantee backed by either of those two nations?

Mutual assistance guarantees need to go the way of the horse and buggy. They serve no purpose other than to drag uninterested parties into an everwidening conflict. The assassination of one man once before dragged the Europe into World War I. We should not allow a system to be set up that might do so again.

So We Finally Got Saddam

So after months of hunting and searching, a tipster finally pointed the US 4th Infantry Division in the right direction to capture our old friend, Saddam. Having grown a long beard, he kind of looked like a hung over Fidel Castro when captured. So we have him. Now what?

If he's executed, he becomes a martyr. If he's not, then the US looks weak in the opinion of the Muslim world. If we put him on trial after the Iraqis, the world will decry the trial as a sham. If we allow the "world community" to put him on trial, the spineless weaklings will make it a sham.

After I got out of work today, I ran down to my parents house and I talked with my Dad at some length about where we could go from here and this is what I would like to see happen.

1.) We interrogate him (maybe we let the Iraqis provide some "assistance" with their Saddamite training) until we are sure that we have all the useful information that we could ever milk out of the man.

2.) Afterwards, or even concurrently, let the Iraqi people put him on trial, with the US providing "prisoner security" (in other words, we house him and transport him back and forth every day to the court). Let the new Iraqi government detail out all of Saddam's evils in a most public and damning way. Let them hold him to public account for his actions.

3.) Once we know that he will not give up any more useful information, and once the Iraqi court has had a chance to provide him with a fair trial, we need to "let slip" an Achmed Ruby to assassinate him Lee Harvey Oswald style. Or, we need to allow him to take the Hermann Goering way out, letting him commit suicide. Let him go to meet Allah thinking he cheated the hangman, while actually using it to show just what a weak human being he was.

Since he was taken alive, we have got to make sure that he is absolutely and thoroughly discredited in Iraqi society. The Iraqi people, in particular the guerillas, need to understand that he will never be returning, that his government was despicable, and that personally he was an evil and morally bankrupt person. Many people will go to war for a man they consider to be a great and infallible leader. Virtually no one will go to fight for a murderous, evil thug.

The easiest part of dealing with the Saddam problem is over. The military did their job and did it exceptionally well, bringing one of the two most wanted men in the world to sit in the dock; to face justice. For that they should be commended.

Now we have to condemn the man in no uncertain terms and with no uncertain consequences. But we have to do it right. We should not murder Saddam (execution is another story, of course), but should he choose to take the weak man's way out, at an appropriate time we should allow it to happen. His easy way out is also an easy way out for us.

I hope that somewhere, Osama is messing his comfy little cave. You can run and you can hide, but if we want you, we will find you.

Another Plane Hit By A Missile?

The AP is reporting that a C-17 appears to have taken "a direct hit" on one of it's engines during take-off from Baghdad International Airport. It is described as being "like the DHL" incident. The plane returned to the airport safely (although I'm sure the crew was lass than thrilled).

If they keep hitting these aircraft with shoulder fired missiles, which have a limited range, and we know the direction in which the aircraft will be departing, why don't we send more patrols out under the flight path to try to effectively seal it off from these terrorists? Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing anyone of misdeeds, I'm just wondering if beefing up the presence under the flight path (and to either side for a certain distance) might not help the situation. Of course, it still wouldn't stop the suicidal nutcase, but it might improve things some....

North Korea Still Playing Nuke Games

South Korea is reporting that they have some evidence that the North Koreans may be firing up the coal plant at their nuclear facility.

Any activity at the facility would seem to make rational discussions with North Korea somewhat more difficult than they already were, if that is possible. If these reports are accurate and North Korea is trying to weasel around, why are we even going to bother with talking to them? Agreements and concessions mean nothing to Kim Jong-Il, who apparently has dropped out of sight lately. Something smells in North Korea and I don't think that it's the smell of burning coal.

Not A Good Day To Be Jewish

Two explosions today, one in Tel Aviv, the other in Modena, Italy.

Deadly Explosion Rocks Tel Aviv Coffee Shop - 2 dead, 12 injured, but it may not be the Palestinian's fault. Apparently there are reports that Ze'ev Rozenstein, Israel's top mafia boss, was seen leaving the area early this afternoon and it has been confirmed that he was injured in the blast.

In Modena, a Jordanian man, appears to have been attempting suicide through self-immolation in his car. However, his car was parked along the outside container walls of a synagogue and it just happened to be powered by propane. Needless to say, it made quite an explosion when the propane went. There are no reports of injuries, but the synagogue did sustain some blown out windows.

No overt terrorist acts yet today, but isn't it odd how two explosions can happen in different parts of the world and both are still in some way related to Judaism?

A Few Reasons Why Syria Should Not Be Trusted

Earlier I mentioned that Turkey should beware of cozying up to Syria. I ran across another column that details out a few of the reasons why:

Damascus still harbors the headquarters of at least 11 terrorist organizations. By some counts the number is higher. They receive not only safe haven, but also succor from Assad's regime.

While supposedly pursuing peace, Syria is putting the finishing touches on a deal with a former Soviet republic to purchase shoulder-fired rockets capable of downing passenger planes and helicopters, just the sort of weapon for which terrorist outfits hanker. If the deal isn't foiled, there's no guarantee Syria won't pass the portable missiles to Hizbullah or to the various anti-American Iraqi groups it sponsors and aids...

Latest reports suggest that shortly before his ouster, Saddam Hussein sought to purchase weapons of mass destruction from North Korea. The bargaining sessions and initial transfers of funds were all handled in Damascus, not only with Assad's full knowledge but with his active, "helpful" mediation...

Washington believes Syria is "facilitating the flow of people, money and goods" to sabotage the Americans is Iraq....Even British Foreign Minister Jack Straw demanded Syria do more to live up to its international commitments and control the terror emanating from its borders.

Now If I was in a position of power in Turkey, I'd be a little concerned about befriending such a peace-loving nation.

Assad is nothing if not unstable. Sometimes circumstances make for strange bedfellows. The trick is knowing when to get out of bed.

The EU Proves Its Mettle Again

I'll bet the Turks are really regretting the day that they decided to tell the US to take a flying leap in the runup to the Iraqi campaign. They succeeded in sucking up to the EU, but nowthey are finding out that the cooperation is a one-way street.

Why are they so surprised that the EU is afraid to act in defiance of the terrorists? Did they really think that the EU had a spine? Or are they really that delusional?

France and Germany still believe that appeasement and negotiation are the best policies when dealing with terrorists. Britain was in the same boat as the US, so there probably is a bit of irritation still at play when it comes to Turkey.

That being said, while the Turks are reaping a bit of what they have sown, it is wrong of the EU, particularly Britain, to stick it to the Turks like this. Combating terrorism is a global concern. To leave the Turks hanging out to dry after they just suffered a major attack is wrong.

Syria and Iran cooperating means nothing. Both are motivated more by political concerns, specifically in diverting the glare of the United States, than they are in truly combating terrorism. The Turks would do well to remember that.

As for Mr. Gul's warning to European leaders that if their countries were attacked "everyone will think twice before co-operating," would best be evaluated in light of Turkey's actions leading up to Iraq. He may be more right than he thinks.

It's Still Not Right

A British intelligence agent gets charged with leaking an email in which American spies requested British intelligence to tap certain telephones. The defendant has pled not guilty claiming "The disclosure made by her was a sincere attempt to prevent what she believed to be an unlawful war and saved the lives of British servicemen and women and Iraqi citizens."

Just because she didn't agree with her government's position, and just because she had a sincere desire to save lives does not mean that she is not guilty of violating the law.

Perhaps conscientious objection should be considered as a mitigating factor in determining the punishment, but it does not change the fact that she violated the law (a fact that her lawyer has even stated she will not dispute).

I'm starting to have some real problems with the idea that activists should, for some reason, be given a pass for acting in "sincere" faith. If their beliefs are so strong that they are willing to willfully violate the law, then they should be willing to stand up and accept their punishment for having done so.

See, anyone can make a stand when there is no consequence. But only a true believer for their cause can face the music for their action.

Hopefully, the British courts will take this opportunity to remind the fair weather activists that there are penalties for violating the law, even when it is a disagreeable one.

Priorities

Now here's an example of an author with some odd priorities:

A man caught driving naked from the waist down while watching kiddie porn on his laptop has become the first man in Toronto charged for allegedly stealing an Internet connection...

Police allege the man downloaded the movie using an Internet connection he intercepted from a nearby house

Is stealing the Internet connection really the most important story here? Don't you think that the fact that we got a kiddie porn enthusiast off the streets (literally) might be a little more relevant?

Someone needs to take this writer out back and explain to them that the kiddie porn is a much more serious violation of community standards than stealing someone else's bandwidth to download it.

Internet connection over kiddie porn, what a sick sense of priorities. I hope the cops and the prosecuter in Toronto have a little more clue (which I'm sure they do).

Via Kevin at Wizbang.

Someone Needs To Monitor The Monitoring Centre

The EU Monitoring Centre has squashed a report on anti-Semitism in Europe because it acknowledged that most of the acts in Europe are being committed by Muslims and pro-Palestinian groups. The report is being called "too inflammatory."

It's official. The EU is now officially scared of the truth. Verifiable facts are ignored and dismissed. Rather than confront the ugly truth before them, they try to soft-sell it and to push the blame off on more broad based groups.

A spade is a spade is a spade. Arguing over the definition of anti-Semitism instead of confronting it head-on is kind of link arguing about the finer points of the definition of murder while the murderer walks free. The argument does nothing to further the cause of justice. Without fair justice, impartial and rule bound, society will collapse. To fail to call a spade what it is, the EUMC is ignoring the societal need for justice.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that most (but not all) anti-Semitic acts these days are being perpetrated by followers of Islam. It may be unfortunate; it may be disappointing; it may be disheartening; it may even be painful to acknowledge. But a fact is a fact. There is simply no getting around that.

Are there anti-Islamic acts taking place in Europe today? I'm sure that there are. Since 9/11, the EUMC has even published three reports of anti-Islamic activities in Europe. But still they protest and call for "fairness" when it comes to a report on anti-Semitism. Imagine the outcry if someone had called for fairness and balance in one of the anti-Islamic activities.

Someone at the EUMC needs to get a clue and to recognize that not everyone in the world is nice and friendly and that sometimes the self-appointed job of monitoring people involves pointing out difficult to swallow observations. Like the demographics of the average anti-Semitist in Europe. It may not be nice and it may not be fun, but it is supposedly what they're getting paid for.

And they wonder why the Americans don't want to take them seriously...

Why I Don't Like Hate Crime Laws

A few days ago I linked to an article that pointed out that the federal government was close to passing a federal hate crime law. At the time I mentioned that I mentioned that hate crime laws in general are too vague which could lead to potential abuse.

Now today, I find an article about how the Australian hate crime laws are being perverted and used for religious persecution. Currently they have a case pending against two Christian pastors for "vilifying Islam" while a witch has filed a complaint against a councilman, claiming that he made warnings about potential occult activity.

Common denominator? The law is being used to attack Christians.

That's why I don't like the hate crime laws. They are being used by the out of power organizations, whether they be Islamic or Wiccan, to destroy the effectiveness of the primary religious institution in the region. Rather than competing for adherents and power on the basis of responding to the needs of the people, they try to drag Christianity down.

That's the basic problem with the hate crime laws, they are not a tool for the government, they are a tool for weak and unpopular special interest groups to attack and tear down the foundations of our society through the court system, since they cannot compete in the court of public opinion.

Orrin Hatch and Teddy Kennedy are enabling this kind of behavior here with their proposed federal hate crime law. If it passes, I can't wait for the first time that one of those two complains about the overcrowding of the court systems.

Italy Is Catching On

Italy has announced plans to expel a Senegalese imam who has been running around making anti-Italian and pro-terrorism comments.

It's unfortunate that Italy is having to resort to expulsion, but I've got to give the Italian authorities credit, they are pro-actively taking steps (in this case, at least) to protect the interests of their citizens. The primary purpose of a national government is to provide for the safety and security of the people it represents. If that requires expelling foreign nationals, well then that's what they need to do.

Every resource and capability of the government needs to be brought to bear in the fight against terrorism. Immigration laws are just a small part of the toolbox that the government has to use.

I'm glad to see the Italians taking an affirmative action to reduce the threat of terror in their nation. Let's hope that they stay the course on it.

Progress!!!

If only this were true:

....Chairman Yasser Arafat said. He added that this was a result of the decision by the PA's security council to implement law and order

They're going to implement law and order? They're going to implement law and order! <dejection>They're going to implement law and order?</dejection>

I'm sorry, but Arafat saying he's going to implement law and order is a joke. The man does not understand law and order except to know that it only exists somewhere else. How can he possibly expect to enforce a concept with which he is totally unfamiliar?

It's nice to see the Palestinian Authority finally at least paying lip service to the idea, but it's going to take more than lip service and roadblocks to create a real environment of law and order. It is going to take a fundamental shift in the behavior and propaganda of the Authority.

I suppose we should be happy and thankful that Arafat has seen the light enough to justify such a proclamation, but I just can't help thinking that, like all the other politically expedient pronouncements he's made in the past, he won't actually follow through.

He did not know how and if the PA would punish the shooter if they apprehend him.

And therein lies the rub. They may catch the perpetrator. They may take a murderer off the street, but they don't know if they would punish him. If Arafat and the PA were truly committed to "law and order" there would be no question of if. The man would be prosecuted and sentenced regardless of public opinion or religious fatwa.

What good is arresting a criminal if you're not going to punish him?

Is Peace With The Palestinians Possible?

So the question of the day. Is "peace in our time" between Israel and the Palestinians possible? Harry Weber doesn't believe so and I tend to agree with his assessment.

The Palestinians have had everything they demanded offered to them - in Oslo in 1993 - yet they rejected it. All of their demands were to be fulfilled in return for the recognition of Israel's right to exist in the Middle East. But Arafat and his cronies showed their hand unequivocally at the time, refusing to give up the written goal of pushing the Jews back into the sea.

As long as Arafat and the Koranic literalists are running the show, nothing will change. Israel is an affront to the fifteenth century interpretation of Islam. Free Jews, with their own nation and their city on the hill, Jerusalem, are absolutely evil and must be eliminated from the landscape.

Terrorism by the Arabs and Palestinians against the Jews has been a fact of life in the region, even before the creation of Israel. And things are getting worse, not better. The Palestinians are now objecting to UN resolutions introduced by Israel to help protect Jewish children. They claim it is too political, despite the fact that it very closely copies the one that was passed to protect Palestinian children a few days earlier.

The Palestinians have still yet to learn respect for the lives and rights to life of the Israelis. Until that happens, until the Palestinians show even the slightest bit of concern, "peace in our time" is as much a pipedream as it was at Munich in 1938.

And we can just look back at the experience of Neville Chamberlain to see how that worked out. You cannot appease a nation or a people with designs on imperialism. And Israel is viewed as being merely a roadblock on the path to the new Muslim Empire.

In South Park They "Blame Canada"; In Mecca, Israel

The Ramabomb in Riyadh has certainly caused a great deal of introspection and soul searching throughout the Middle East as they try to figure out the age-old question "Why do they hate us?" Remarkably, however, the mullahs of Mecca have come up with exactly the same answer as they have for every single other issue that exposes a shortcoming in the fifteenth century mindset of Wahhabism: It's all Israel's (read: the Jew's) fault.

What is the purpose of the black crime of killing children and women in the month of Islam, in a Muslim capital, and in a Muslim country, the country of the two holy mosques? They kill and spread destruction. What is the purpose of this crime and how can we explain this behavior?....

What do these killers in Riyadh want? Do terrorists in Israel and Riyadh have the same goal? Is it their goal to kill more Arabs and Muslims and to spread panic, trouble, and violence? Do they coordinate their actions?

Well of course they coordinate their actions. You just know that the SuperJew Osama was on the phone with Ariel Sharon getting the go ahead for Operation Ramabomb just minutes prior to the blast. Watch for the details of the al-Qaida company picnic in downtown Tel Aviv to be made public soon. Surely by now everyone knows that a terrorist organization backed by the Wahhabi government of Saudi Arabia is really nothing more than a front organization for the vast Zionist conspiracy. </sarcasm>

I'm really, really sorry here but I do not believe for a second that the bombing in Riyadh was even remotely connected in any way, shape, or form to Israel. The clerics simply need to realize that the hatred they spread on a daily basis: "O God, destroy the occupier Jews, who are spreading tyranny and corruption." is finally coming back to bite them.

al-Qaida is nothing more than a more fundamentalist, more militant, more violent offshoot of the standard issue Saudi Wahhabism. Like it or not, the Ramabomb attack is nothing more than a conspiracy by a bunch of nutjob Arabs to kill. They don't really care who they kill as long as someone dies as a result of their violence.

Once they learn that al-Qaida is an organization of their own making, maybe then we'll begin to see change. Until then, expect to hear much more about the vast Zionist conspiracy and the infamous question:

"Why do they hate us?"

Maybe The Canadian Health Care System Isn't Nirvana

The [Wall Street] Journal story also notes the outcry that arose when a heart patient died in 1989 after having surgery canceled 11 times....

Tragedies like that one led to a scoring system being put in place in one Ontario medical network to standardize waiting times for heart patients. Patients are assigned a score - a ``2'' should wait only 48 hours for surgery for example, a score between ``5'' and ``7'' can wait 120 days.

OK. So the Canadians have cheaper prescription drugs (and a veritable army of spammers trying to sell them here), but is their health care system really the best model for us to aspire to?

I don't really like the idea of nationalized health care. The last thing I want in my life is an bunch of uncaring, faceless bureaucrats looking at me as a number and then running a strict cost/benefit analysis to determine if I should live or not. My life is worth a whole hell of lot more to me than it is to them where I would be just another piece of paper to push from the In basket to the Out.

Putting a bureaucrat's life-altering (or life-saving) decision before mine or my family's is just wrong. Decisions of life and death are best decided by those involved.

There are very few things in this world that belong to you and you alone. Your health is one of them. We should not voluntarily give up our control over our health. To do so is to expand the powers of our government into the realm of the wannabe-God dictators.

No bureaucrat in America should have the power of life or death over any citizen.

Some People Just Can't Take Criticism

Ignore the goofy headline for the time being.

Obviously, some Muslims have a little trouble with the concept of criticism (as if we didn't already know that), even when it comes from within.

Of course, their intellectual arguments are simply outstanding, seeming to consist of statements along the lines of "ignorant clown."

What was the great offense to light off such a heated and deep debate within Saudi society? Was it a direct assault on the Wahabbi cult calling it out for the breeding ground of hatred that it is? Was it an attack on The Prophet himself? Was it expounding on the benefits of a conversion to Christianity?

No.

The offensive episode was called "Without a Mahram," the male guardian who must be the woman's father, brother, son or husband under the conservative Wahhabi Islamic philosophy applied in Saudi Arabia.

A Saudi woman needs a mahram to go to a government office or a restaurant or to go anywhere in a car. Saudi women are not allowed to drive, and if they are caught in a vehicle with a man other than a mahram or a professional driver, they can be jailed.

The episode showed the troubles suffered by the women in one family -- a mother, sister, wife and daughter -- when the only man in the house has to go away for six months.

The sister could not go to work, the wife couldn't go out shopping and the daughter was without her beloved videos because women are not allowed in video stores. When a policeman came to investigate a theft at the house, he refused to enter because there was no mahram. Al-Qasabi played the part of the cop.

So there you have it. They took a critical look at the problems faced by a significant portion of their population due to their laws. They exposed a truth of everyday life.

The actor's response?

"Those who oppose the program have a problem with people who do not think the way they do," he said in an interview. "They always believe they're right and the other is wrong, and they refuse to talk. ... They want to drag us to the Stone Age."

Now I'm sure that some Wahabbi apologist out there is going to rail about how the actor is misconstruing the criticism and is blowing this all out of proportion, but take a look at this other, unrelated incident from the same article:

For instance, the Commission for the Protection of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice -- the formal name of the religious police -- prevented one Saudi prince who owns a factory from registering the brand name of a new product because the commission didn't like its name, Explorer.

The prince, Amr Mohammed Al-Faisal, reacted caustically in the Arab News.

"The learned scholars of the commission rightly noted that the letter X in the name was a cross, and this aroused their delicate Islamic sensibilities," the prince wrote.

"I am greatly relieved that thanks to the vigilance of the commission a great tragedy was avoided," he said. "Until then I had innocently and, I must admit, naively assumed that the letter X was just that, a letter of the alphabet, not as it turns out a cunning and dastardly plot by Christians to corrupt our Muslim faith."

I'm glad that the Prince had the guts to call out the religion police on what has got to be just about the most asinine ruling I've ever seen outside of the Florida Supreme Court. I'm guessing that the letter "X" is also used in the Koran. I wonder what kind of reaction the clericops have for that? Is that part of the great Christian plot to corrupt Islam also?

I'm guessing that for as long as Wahabbi rules the peninsula, that question will never be addressed.

And social progress towards the nineteenth century will never be made.

Reality Must Be Relative

How some people can function in the world is truly beyond me. If your country created the radical Wahabbi sect and you were a cleric of that sect wouldn't you find just a wee bit of irony in this:

Sudeis urged everyone in Saudi Arabia -- including security forces and media -- to combat terror and radical ideology. (emphasis mine)

The guy spends all his time spreading hatred and preaching violence (he even managed to drag Israel into this) and then he turns around and tells people that they should disdain and despair the very teachings he promotes.

I'll give credit where credit is due: it is good to see that even the Wahabbis are starting to understand that al Qaida is not some friendly group. Even the Saudis are now starting to call out bin Laden & Co. for what they are: murderous thugs. And that is good.

But I'll be more impressed the first time that they don't drag Israel into something. I'll be more impressed the first time they stand back and say, "Hey! Maybe this Wahabbi stuff is a little too extreme."

I doubt that I'll see either of those anytime soon, but we're at least starting to see some baby steps in the right direction.

Now This Is An Identity Crisis

So, to be a Jewish lesbian or the wife of a Muslim terrorist? This was the question that, at some point, was before Melanie Brown, now known as Khadija. Her answer? Both!

Oh how I would just love to hear the psychotherapy sessions regarding the transition. What possesses a girl to go from being a Jewish lesbian to being the wife of a man who just months before would have had two reasons, in his mind at least, to kill her. The contorted logic that has to be involved would likely be fascinating to hear.

Some people have minor identity issues in life. It sounds to me like Ms. Brown's were just a little more than minor.

I guess the world takes all kinds, sometimes all rolled into one.

Egyptians Against Arabism

Ah, now this is good to see. After reading article after article after article about how Israel is the fault of everything wrong in the Arab world, I finally come across an article from someone who has a clue.

A group of Egyptian intellectuals and members of free professions have formed a party called "Egypt the Motherland" (Misr al-Um) that will represent those Egyptians who see their culture as distinct from the Arabic culture...

How about that? Someone is taking note that the Egyptians are not Arabs, they're Egyptian. They have a longer and more rich history than the Arabs. They have done much more for civilization. There is, and never was, any reason for them to have surrendered their heritage.

I don't think that returning to heiroglyphics is necessarily the answer, but returning the the concept that they are Egyptian is a good start on the path towards a true revival of Egypt.

It's good to see that there are some in Egypt who are trying to throw off the shackles of Arab Imperialism. It can only be the start of something better than they already have.

Why Do They Always Drag In Israel?

al-Qaida blows up an Arab residential compound in Riyadh. They deliberately target Muslim women and children. Why?

With Washington continuing its occupation of Iraq, despite international and United Nations protests, Arabs are feeling increaslingly insecure, said the Riyadh-based employee. The Bush administration's handling of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has only fuelled anger. (emphasis mine)

Now, the last I checked, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had nothing, zero, to do with this bombing. It was an attack on the House of Saud, a regime the terrorists consider to be too moderate for their tastes. This had nothing to do with the Jews. It had nothing to do with Tel Aviv. It had nothing to do with Jerusalem, the Al Asqa Mosque, or the Temple Mount. It was a strike at the Saudi regime.

The Arabs have got to get away from the intellectual crutch of blaming Israel for everything in some way, shape, or form. Israel is the root of all evil only in the minds of those too feeble of mind to think for themselves. It is a scapegoat for those unwilling to look within. It is an excuse for those incapable of self-criticism.

The Arabs living in Saudi Arabia need to simply deal with the fact that the seeds sown by the Saudi regime are starting to blossom. Wahabbi Islam is creating hate filled monsters with no direction, except the unending pusuit of martyrdom. They don't care who they kill or how, so long as they can brand the potential victim an infidel and therefore get their 72 virgins in Paradise. Muslim, Jew, Christian. Arab, Israeli, American. None of it matters. A dead "infidel" is the ticket to never ending bliss for the terrorists. Hitting the US and Israel have become too difficult for the thugs lately. Is it any wonder that they turned their homicidal tendencies on their own? Not to anyone who has paid attention it's not.

I keep hoping against hope that this will be the wake-up call for Muslims and Arabs alike to see that the nutjobs do not care about anything other than murder and mayhem. If they're already starting to fall back on the Israeli crutch, I don't think that I'm going to be rewarded for my hope this time either.

French Depression

So, now the French are taking more anti-depressants, anti-psychotics and other mood altering drugs than the British, Italians, and the Germans. At least at the governmental level, it would explain a lot. So how about it Jacques? What pills have you been popping?

I also find it interesting that the WHO rates France's "health system the best there is," yet the Health Minister this summer started denying payment on 900 out of 4300 prescription drugs due to budget overruns. The reason? They had "little or no recognisable medical effect."

I guess that the snake oil salesmen in France are having a tough time of it right now. It's too bad they won't be able to get government payments for their bronchial lubricants and hepatitic protectors.

I wonder if the WHO is going to downgrade their assessment of the French health care system after the coming sudden increase in la crise de foie? You know how it is when take away people's placebos they were taking for their "issues."

The More Things Change

In a speech marking the 65th anniversary of Kristallnacht, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder has called on the people of Germany to resist the resurgence of racism and anti-Semitism.

On the night of November 9th, 1938, Nazi gangs in various German towns and cities plundered and set light to Jewish shops and synagogues. With so much broken glass, this 'crystal night' marked the start of the official persecution of the Jews in Adolf Hitler's Third Reich.

Chancellor Schroder described it as a day when civilisation and decency made way for lawlessness and hate. (Radio Netherlands via Free Republic)

Sometimes, I sit and wonder if we're facing a redo of the 1930s. Anti-Semitism is on the rise. The world economy is still struggling. Demagogues seem to rule the day more than rational thinkers. Appeasement is in; intervention is considered by the elite to be gauche. We've, to a large extent, reduced our military capability below a threshold of reasonableness. The threats are on the horizon, just this time their names are Bin Laden, Jong Il, and Khomeni instead of Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini.

To me, the most troubling sign is the rise in anti-Semitism, again. The Malaysian Prime Minister can make blatant anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist quality comments and he gets a shrug from many. Europeans can vote Israel as the greatest threat to world peace. Bin Laden, Arafat and their cronies can call for the extermination of Israel and all the Jews. And no one really seems to give it too much concern.

Large segments of the world are heading back into the habit of scapegoating the Jews for every little thing that goes wrong. The world holds Israel to a different standard. We expect them to surrender the territories like the Sudetenland. We expect them to show restraint in the face of direct violent attacks, like the residents of the Nazi ghettos. It's almost as if we would accept their elimination in the name of "world peace."

But Bin Laden and his ilk really are no different from the tyrants of the '30s. Just as Nazis simply had they appetites whet by the sacrifice of the Sudetenland, the Islamists would only be emboldened by an Israeli sacrifice of the West Bank and Gaza. Jerusalem would be the next target (look at what happened when the Israelis offered Arafat everything he asked for - he backed up and demanded all of Jerusalem also). Their lebensraum wouldn't be Europe. It wouldn't be the Middle East. Hitler at least pretended to hide his aspirations of world domination. The Islamists make it no secret at all.

We've been down this road once before and we made the mistake of appeasement. The terrorists in charge today cannot and should not be appeased. They need to be pressured, to be put on the defensive, to be taken out of power.

Otherwise, they may make WWII and the Holocaust look like an opening act.

A Glimmer Of Understanding?

After yesterday's bombing of the residential compound in Riyadh, I was kind of interested to see what the response of the Muslims in the region would be. I think that the reactions are showing some promise.

Al Jazeera has a decent little article about how Bin Laden really doesn't like the House of Saud too much. They're starting to show concern that maybe these attacks on civilians aren't quite in line with the preachings of the Qu'ran, as this Reuters article demonstrates.

I find it distasteful in the extreme that the Saudis would refer to a suicide bombing that killed 35 their "9/11." Deplorable? Yes. Unfortunate? Absolutely. Reason for anger? Definitely. A 9/11? Not even close.

These suicide attacks are a small taste of what al-Qaida is capable of. They could call these their Khobar Towers and it would be accurate. But it is not a 9/11.

Perhaps, though it will be enough to push the moderate factions in Saudi Arabia to quit supporting the terrorists. They now have to know that support does not equal safety. The terrorists simply want to kill, regardless of sex, age, race, or religion.

Maybe if the RamaBomb forces the Saudis to come down solidly on the side of peace I'll feel differently and less offended.

For some reason though, I don't expect to feel any more conciliatory anytime soon.

Hijacking Cargo Planes Next?

I actually saw this yesterday, but didn't think too much of it. But Al Jazeera expanded on the story a little and offered an explanation as to how this might happen.

I don't think that this would so much a hijacking, as it would be a theft. To hijack a cargo plane in flight would be nearly impossible, as there are no passengers and the cargo is separated from the cockpit by heavy duty netting designed to hold back the cargo during high G-force events.

Now if they were trying to steal an airplane sitting on the tarmac in Canada, or Mexico, or in the Caribbean it probably wouldn't be too difficult as airport security, especially south of the United States, is lax. Sneaking onto the airport and stealing a 727 or a DC-3 wouldn't be a real challenge.

But the effects of crashing such an airplane wouldn't be all that impressive. The WTC and Pentagon were both so destructive because of the nearly full fuel loads on the airplanes. Stealing a relatively small airplane, which is what flies around North America, they would be running low on fuel by the time they reached their destination. A lower fuel load at impact means that they would need to be more accurate with their aim.

The idea of hijacking or stealing a cargo plane to use as a bomb is great for creating terror as it invokes the memory of the horror of 9/11. I don't see it as being a particularly practical or effective threat. The airplanes would be smaller than those used on 9/11 and would be nearing the edge of their range by the time they could actually be used as a weapon.

Does make for an impressive sounding threat though.

Einstein, Marx, Von Braun?

It's interesting to see who other countries consider to be their greatest citizens. This time, it's the Germans doing a "best German" contest.

It has the usual expected assortment of athletes and pop figures for a public poll. But some of the other names are interesting.

In the top ten you have: Marx, Einstein, Willy Brandt, Bach, Goethe, Adenaeur, Bismarck, Martin Luther, Gutenberg and the Scholls.

Some of the names that surprised me were: Beethoven at 12th. Wagner at 69, and Mozart at 20. I was really surprised at how high some of the athletes were ranked, as well as the current German regime of Schroeder and Fischer.

But that's what I get for viewing the poll from an American point of view.

I'll be interested to see who they chose as the "best German." If I were over there and had those ten choices, I'd probably go with Gutenberg, then Luther, and then Einstein. But I don't get a say in this one.

Arafat Says No To Peace, Again

Once again, Yassar Arafat had an opportunity to make a real gesture of conciliation in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Once again, he refused to let control of the security apparatus of the state pass to someone else.

So long as Yassar is pulling the puppet strings in Ramallah there is no hope of the Palestinian Authority morphing into an organization that can be reasoned with or trusted. Arafat is an unreformed terrorist, pure and simple. Somewhere along the way, we forgot that maxim "never negotiate with terrorists." This would be a good time to remember.

So long as the Palestinians think that we're going to negotiate with this twit there will be no incentive for them to actually figure out how to pursue peace. They constantly claim that arresting terrorists will lead to civil war. That's only because the top terrorist will not stand in the way of the thugs formenting the discord.

Arafat fears giving up the security apparatus because he knows that if someone else were in charge they could squash a rebellion by the rabble rousers. And then, a true peace, based on trust could be formed as opposed to Arafat's goal of peace through annihilation.

But for the time being, Arafat still has control of his brownshirt squadrons. And the prospects for peace are still in the gutter. Just like Yassar wants.

Bomb Detonated In Riyadh

Looks like the terrorists are at it again. Three explosions around midnightrocked a residential compound in western Riyadh. Estimates of the wounded run as high as 100 people, with an unknown number dead.

This is another of the terrorist's brilliant moves. The shopping mall they bombed this time was full of Saudi and Arab citizens out reveling in the night due to the fasting restrictions of Ramadan. If you're going to wage jihad wouldn't it make sense to go after the people least likely to support you, not your most die-hard adherents?

But I guess my not understanding that is why I'm not a terrorist. Obviously there must be some sort of logical reason behind this or else they wouldn't keep going and blowing up their financial backers (unless you want to cook up a conspiracy theory about Wahhabi being under the control of the Mossad and it all ultimately being a Jewish plot to eliminate the Arabs, but I kind of doubt it. I just think they ain't none too bright.)

I also caught one other thing I thought was interesting as I was reading through the article:

He [a Saudi official] said most of the wounded were believed to be children because their parents were out shopping during Ramadan. Most of the residents are Arabs and few Westerners live in the area. (emphasis mine)

So we're just up and leaving the kids at home alone at midnight on a Saturday night so that we can go run down to the mall for some midnight madness shopping? Maybe if it were Saturday afternoon, I could understand, but the middle of the night? Come on. Where's the sense of familial responsibility? I'm not a big fan of "For The Children," but this is ridiculous. No one in their right mind leaves their children (not teenagers, mind you. Children) sitting at home at midnight. At least one of the up to five parents should have been at home with the kids. Someone capable of making a thought out and reasoned decision should have been there.

I will never understand how these terrorist can preach their hatred of the Jews, the Christians and the infidels and then they turn right around and blow up Muslim kids. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Dang, Missed!

Israeli forces tracked down and captured another "militant" yesterday:

Amjad Abeidi was tracked down to a neighborhood in the West Bank town of Jenin by soldiers who began a house-to-house search.

They discovered a weapons cache under one house and when they destroyed it with a grenade, Abeidi emerged from hiding, slightly wounded.

So this great jihadi, this terrorist mastermind, comes whimpering out of his hiding spot when the Israelis blow up his guns. Did he forget that it would be more glorious to bleed to death than to surrender to the Israelis? Or was he afraid that by dying while hiding from the "infidels" that Allah might not bless his sorry soul? Or maybe he just felt that he was to important to martyr just yet, surely he has more Hanadi Janarat's in the pipeline.

The guy should be happy that the he's being captured by the Israelis. If the roles had been reversed, I seriously doubt that he'd still be alive and I don't think the execution would have been able to be defined as anything other than excessive torture.

But hey, it is one more bomb maker off the streets.

What Is It With These Guys?

Via On The Third Hand

So two raving geniuses have gone and blown themselves up in Mecca after the Saudi authorities tried to arrest them for having ties to al-Qaida.

So, do these guys just walk around town with "emergency" bombs in case the cops try to arrest them? Are all their clothes made of Semtex? If this were in Gaza or Nablus, I could understand running into a guy carrying a bomb (it still wouldn't be right, but it's semi-expected in the Territories), but this is Mecca, one of the two home cities of the Religion of Peace. Muslims are supposed to be there to worship and pray, not to take part in bomb making seminars. Have they no respect for the sanctity of their own holidays? Don't the rules for Ramadan include such restrictions as no eating, having sex, or self-detonating during daylight hours?

The legitimacy of Saudi rulers rests partly on their custodianship of Mecca, which is off-limits to non-Muslims. A strike on Mecca could be seen as a strike on the regime

So we're going to blow up religious shrines to get back at a government we don't like? Doesn't seem like it would be too effective. For some reason I don't think that for an American to blow up the National Cathedral would really have much effect on the governance of the nation. Wouldn't have an effect on the legitimacy of the government either. Would get someone's butt thrown in jail for long time, though.

Even a religiously based government like Iran's wouldn't lose any perceived legitimacy because the biggest mosque in Iran blew up. The moron that did it would lose his head, but the government wouldn't fall.

Which makes me question what these guys were thinking if they thought that blowing up Mohammad's childhood home would bring down the modern Saudi government. But then again, they blew themselves up, which indicates to me that they weren't thinking too much.

Oh, well. Two less people in the gene pool.

A Trade War?

The EU has decided it would be a good idea to start slapping the US with trade sanctions for violations of the WTO rules. In the spirit of generosity they're starting only at $200 million, even though the WTO has said they are entitled to $4 billion in sanctions. If we don't change our ways they have threatened to raise the sanctions by $40 million a month until we come in to compliance with their wishes.

In the universe of stupid moves, this comes pretty close to being one of the top ones. The world is tottering on the brink of a global recession and we're going to threaten to raise protectionist tariffs in a quest to make trade more fair - by stopping it for everyone. Having everything of nothing is still nothing. It would be a lesson the WTO/EU crowd would be well advised to learn.

If the EU carries through on this threat, I see it as being but the first shot in a much wider trade war. What the WTO imperialists need to remember is that without the WTO, the US still has clout in the world, but without the US, the WTO is nothing more than a trade version of the League of Nations, doomed to irrelevance and failure.

Hopefully the eurocrats are figuring out how they're going to get themselves out of this rhetorical corner while saving face. Otherwise the blood of a vicious trade war and the resulting recession/depression will be on their stubborn hands.

The United States is a sovereign nation. We have not been a colony of any European nation since 1776 and they will not use the WTO to impose a new form of taxation without representation. We've fought that Revolution once. We'll fight it again, if necessary.

Sharon Has More Confidence Than Me

Sharon: PA leadership that objects to terror will soon arise - Sharon must know about some societal change in the Palestinian culture that will lead to this change. I just don't see this happening until something big changes, but that's just me.

Time To Thank The French

Got to give credit where credit is due. Our erstwhile friends the French probably made the biggest contribution to the success of the war in Iraq by, in concert with the Russians, convincing Saddam he could survive an American land invasion. Saddam, being the obvious student of history he is, went ahead and took this brilliant military advice from Jacques.

As a result, Saddam sat more immobile than Hitler when he was convinced Patton was coming ashore at Calais. So convinced of French and Russian intervention he conveniently ignored every indication of what awaited him. So convinced as his salvation was he that he didn't bother to create a real plan for defending his country. All this because the French and Russians convinced him that the war would begin with a long, drawn out bombing campaign during which the UN would be used to try to stop us.

And Saddam believed the whispered promises from Paris. He believed the shadowy statements coming from Moscow.

Paris and Moscow unwittingly saved hundreds of American lives with their disinformation campaign. Think of how many more casualties we would have had if the Iraqis had actually put up a fight. They tried to save Saddam, but instead they cost him everything: his dictatorship, his sons, and quite possibly his own life.

Thanks for the help, Jacques! Think you can pull off the same thing with Tehran?

Bigots In Jacksonville?

Interesting story, this is. A bus driver in Jacksonville removes several Muslim kids from the bus. The kids end up walking home and are refused transport two days later (the first event happened on a Wednesday, the second on a Friday). Those are the facts that are agreed on. It gets interesting when you start reading differing accounts of the story.

This isn't just a simple local story. With there being Muslims involved, we of course, ended up with CAIR involved and then the ACLU. This leads to a situation in which the truth becomes relative and subjective, rather then strictly factual. But then, to make it worse Al Jazeera got involved.

Al Jazeera is making the claim that the kids were thrown off the bus eight miles from home and forced to walk, along with being denied transport on Friday, simply because they were Muslim. They merely brush past the allegations of disciplinary problems, as though they never happened, and instead focus on this being a racist act by the evil, bigoted people of Jacksonville.

However, the racist bigots at the Florida Times-Union seem to have a bit of a different story.

They agree that the kids were removed from the bus. But according to the school officials (never quoted in the Al Jazeera article) they were dropped at the school and chose to walk, even after being given a chance to call their parents. School administrators and a school police officer trying to get them back to the school. On Friday, the school system indicates that they were twice offered transportation and twice refused to get on the bus.

Two very different stories, huh?

Something doesn't sound right to me. I'm guessing that the story of the school officials is probably the more accurate. I'll bet that there were disciplinary problems on the bus. I'll bet that the kids were brought back to school and then chose to walk home on their own accord. And I'll almost guarantee that the bus driver was motivated by anything but racism.

What lessons are the kids involved here learning? Simple. They're being taught that the best way to deal with an uncomfortable situation is to scream racism. What they should be learning is how to behave according to normal rules of conduct. What they should be learning is how to accept the consequences of poor decisions without reaching for the crutch of victimhood.

It's too bad that these parents, CAIR, and the ACLU are more concerned with pandering to the Al Jazeera reporters than they are with teaching their kids how to act responsibly.

Syria: An Exaggerated Threat

Well, they're an exaggerated threat in their own mind.

I think that after the concern expressed about their most recent "veiled" threats against Israel, they started to get the message that the US is not going to brook that kind of language.

They threatened to hit settlements in the Golan Heights if Israel were to go after any other targets in Syria again. So how would that be different?

Well, Israel went after a training camp for Palestinian militants. Where might those trainees be heading when they finish their lessons? If you guessed Israel, you'd probably be right.

So what about the settlements in the Golan? Syria still believes the Golan to be their territory, but what do the settlers do when they're done settling? They go home. They don't go out and blow themselves up in the middle of Palestinian markets. They don't fire rockets off into Syria. Basically they're good, if unwanted, neighbors.

If Syria were truly committed, as they occasionally claim to be, to peace then they would be accepting of Israel's action. They may complain about a lack of warning. They may have made noises about a violation of national sovereignty. But their response is not one of a peace loving nation. It is the response of a belligerent trying to threaten fro a position of weakness.

Syria claims the quote was taken out of context. I don't believe them. I believe that they are trying to take it out of the context of the relationship between Israel and Syria. Without that context, nothing between these two nations makes sense.

Syria's threat was not exaggerated. If anything, it was understated. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

The Price Of Peace

I seem to be on a bit of a Palestinian/Israeli article kick tonight. I wonder why? Oh well, no matter.

Today marks the eighth anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish extremist opposed to the peace process.

I think that this points out a huge and significant difference in the Israelis from the Palestinians.

Say what you will about Rabin and the peace process. You can disagree with his position and his actions, but you cannot deny that he was a person who inspired the Israeli people and who acted from conviction.

Rabin has been dead for eight years now. Yet they still hold peace rallies in his memory. They still try to work towards the goal of peace with the Palestinians that he set out back in the early '90s.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, celebrate suicide bombers. They celebrate the murder of civilians. The celebrate not the idea of peace, but the concept of jihad.

One side celebrates life. The other, death. One side wants to help the other to build a state. The other wants destroy their neighbors.

Until there is a change in the situation on the ground, the Israelis will continue to hold peace vigils for Rabin and his dream will not be realized.

I Wonder Why?

Once again, Israel has restricted access to the Temple Mount in anticipation of violence during Ramadan. The Palestinians are, to be expected, upset about this. So why would Israel feel a need to do this? What justification might they have?

Well, how about:

Al-Qaida plans to launch massive attacks on U.S. and allied interests throughout the Mideast during the Islamic fast month of Ramadan.

Or:

For its part, the Islamic Jihad movement stressed in a festival held in Beit Lahia town to the north of Gaza on the 8th assassination anniversary of its founder and secretary general Fatehi al-Shiqaqi, its persistence to continue resistance and rejection of any truce with Israel.

I've been to the Temple Mount. If the Israelis are voicing concerns about the potential for violence, I can agree that they are well founded.

This is a case of the Palestinians reaping a little of what they have sown. They used the Mount as a platform for violence in the past and as a result they've lost any real credibility in claiming it won't be the same this time. They made a choice to lash out against the Jews in Jerusalem, using the Mount for cover; they also made a choice to accept whatever reasonable punishment the Israelis might impose because of that action.

It is my belief that the Palestinian right to pray on the Temple Mount is greatly outweighed by the Israeli right to security and self-defense. If the Israelis feel it is necessary to restrict access to a known flashpoint for violence, well, you won't hear any complaints from my little corner of the world.

What Is Al-Qaida's Thing For Airplanes?

What is the fascination that Al-Qaida has for airplanes? We've got 9/11, the El Al flight coming out of Kenya (unsuccessful), and now this report coming out that they have acquired Russian made SA-7 missiles with the idea of shooting down a Western airliner during Ramadan.

Why?

What does shooting down a Western airliner really accomplish? They might scare a few people, particularly if they do it over here. But how does it further their cause?

The only thing that it would prove is that they have no concern for innocent human life. And that they could hit the aeronautical equivalent of a barn door with a guided missile.

There is no symbolism in shooting down a 747 any more. Today, we have no equivalent to Pan Am. There would be no equivalent image as the Clipper of the Seas lying in the field in Lockerbie. Everyone who knows anything about commercial aircraft knows that those big turbofans are nothing more than giant bullseyes for infrared missiles.

So by shooting one down, they prove that they can pull the trigger and that they're willing to pull it on innocent people. Unless you're truly deranged enough to think that you can win a battle with a motivated, focused, and pissed American people this probably isn't too bright. Ask Adolf or Tojo. Ask Kaiser Wilhelm if bringing the Americans in full force was a bright idea. Hell, Yamamoto knew it and still ended up paying for with his life.

Why do people keep thinking it's a good idea to create the next Lusitania or Pearl Harbor? Why do they think it's a good idea to draw us into a wider war, one in which our weaponry, our tactics, and most importantly, our conviction are superior? To judge us by our peacetime internal squabbling and open demeanor is to make a grave mistake.

They have SA-7s. We have a reserve of strength and fortitude stronger than any weapon,. They have jihad. We have such a belief in our values that we don't feel a need to impose them on everyone by force. They believe it to be a great accomplishment to murder hundreds and to destroy millions of dollars of hardware. We believe the murder to be lamentable and the destruction to be replaceable. They are pushing their limits every which way. We've barely begun to scratch the surface of ours.

They can shoot down an airplane and our lives will go on. Theirs, however, becomes more questionable.

Revenge Killing In Iraq

We knew it had to start happening at some point. Shi'ites in Basra are nowexecuting revenge killings against Ba'athists Sunnis who used to run Iraq.

We've really done a pretty good job of keeping these kind of events under control. But look at the response of the Iraqi police chief in Basra: With a shrug, Cpl. Hisham Jabar, chief investigating officer in the killing of Muhammad Abdul Nabi al- Gishi on Wednesday afternoon, said, "No one has been arrested."

Want to know why it's not time to turn the country back over to the Iraqis? That response right there is the best reason.

They have made strides, but they still don't understand completely the concept of rule by law. Coming out of a system where the rule of law was fungible it is unreasonable to expect an instant adjustment to a fair and equitable law. But that shift must be made before the country can be completely turned back over to the Iraqi people.

This is not an unexpected turn of events, but it does represent a test for the Iraqi law enforcement and the formative Iraqi regime. They need to bring the responsible people to justice. They need to show that the laws will be enforced fairly, regardless of who the victim or the perpetrator might be.

Only when that begins to become the expectation, rather than the exception, will it be time to turn the country back over.

A No Hudna Zone

Gees, that friendly "charity" known as Hamas has declared that "there is no room for discussion" of another cease fire until Israel stops its aggressions.

Sounds like something a child would say: "I'll act right when you quit punishing me!" That's the time to jack up the pressure, not to release it. That's when you know that you're having a real effect is when they start blustering about how you're not having any effect.

Besides why would the Israelis want a hudna anyways? All it is is a ceasefire designed to give both sides time to rearm before beginning the conflict again. Perhaps during medieval warfare this was a generous offer, but not now it isn't. It's simply an opportunity for the bomb makers in Gaza and the West Bank to build up an inventory to be used in a "blaze" of hateful "glory."

Let Hamas declare their opposition to a hudna. Let them declare their opposition to peace. Let them prove just how charitable they really are.

Why The Geneva Initiative Won't Work

The EU currently has a proposal on the table known as the Geneva Initiative, which is designed to promote peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Soem Israelis have been studying the Initiative pretty closely and have identified a number of problem areas.

A small selection:

* Supervision to prevent the smuggling of weapons may remain in force for only five years.

* An Israeli military presence, under the supervision of an international force, may remain in the Jordan Valley for only 5.5 years.

* Israel is to begin withdrawing from Yesha immediately, while no time element is associated with the disbanding of Palestinian terror forces.

* No mention is made of the collection and removal of illegal weapons within the PA.

* Israel is barred from patrolling the airspace over Judea and Samaria, only a few kilometers from Ben-Gurion International Airport.

So, in essence, the Geneva Initiative is little more than a reworded version of the Israel concession/Palestinian promise plan.

But what exactly is a Palestinian promise worth?

Lerner also noted that "Article 6 Paragraph 5(b)iii [states that] the Waqf will determine what may 'disrupt religious worship decorum on the site' - and since the Waqf has the authority to determine what may disrupt religious worship decorum, and since, as you know, the Waqf believes that Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount is blasphemy, it follows that they will bar Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount on the grounds that it disrupts decorum."

When I was on the Temple Mount, they had a terrorist museum/celebration of victimhood. When I went in, I really hadn't really developed any anti-Palestinian feelings (those started right after we left the museum and a little kid was calling me a Zionist because I wouldn't but his pictures for $50). But the inside of the museum was just too much, way, way too much. Bloody shirts, weapons, pictures of Israeli "oppression." It was all just laid on so thick. It makes it completely believable that they would ban Jewish worship on the Temple Mount without a concern in the world about being fair to the spirit of the agreement.

But the bigger problem is this:

...Israel is an illegitimate state. This definition applies to organizations
and individuals that represent [Israel] or recognize it. Therefore, in order
to emphasize this illegitimacy, all ties with the "Israelis" should be
canceled, and in other words: normalization with Zionists should be opposed
on a world level, not only in the Arab homeland...
...There is no option other than the elimination of the imperialist-Zionist
project... The meaning of resisting Israel is resisting Globalization, and
vice versa..."

How can you realistically make peace or lasting agreements with people who want you eliminated? It's would be like the French trying to buy peace with Hitler by giving up Paris. It's asinine to think it would work. The Palestinians are only interested in peace - once the Jews are gone. They have never given up the idea of pushing Israel back into the sea and they never will.

That is why the Geneva Initiative will fail, just like the Oslo Accord; just like the Road Map. Peace requires both parties to want it. The Palestinians do not want peace. They only want to get rid of the Jews.

Until that basic fact changes, every agreement, no matter how well intended, will fail.

French To Retarget Their Nukes?

France is to enact a historic shift in military strategy by targeting its nuclear missiles on "rogue states" that have weapons of mass destruction, it was reported yesterday...

In unveiling such a new strategy, M Chirac would bring France into line with America, which has said it might one day be necessary to use nuclear force against nations with weapons of mass destruction.

I love that last part. Chirac is looking at bringing France into line with the US. Eating that kind of humble pie has got to be painful to his pride. But then again, an acknowledgement of reality after vocal denial usually is a shot to the old ego.

The bottom line here is that nukes still work. They are, in quantity, still a real deterrent. I'm pretty sure that somewhere, some rational imam has realized that really ticking off the US probably isn't a bright idea. Yeah, you might pull off some great operation in the name of Allah, but it's awfully hard to spread the religion when most of the followers are turned to glowing dust in the wind by an infuriated nuclear power.

It's good to see Chirac finally wising up to the ways of the world. Appeasement is not the end all answer. Sometimes the best defense is having an offensive capability that inspires fear in the enemy.

And telling them that the nukes are already targeted on them - well, it helps to put the fear of Allah in them. It means that the thought has already been taken out of the decision loop. It goes from piss us off, let us think while we retarget, and then push the button to piss us off, push the button. It takes out that extra doubt inducing step.

I don't often say this, but if the report is accurate, this is a good move by Jacques.

Wow, Chirac Is Really Generous

Political grandstanding is a trait that I do not like in politicians. So is it any wonder than, once again, I'm annoyed with Jacques? In his latest grandstanding he has decided to set an example of generosity, granting Mali a four reprieve from paying its debt to France.

Sounds all nice and generous, maybe even bighearted of Jacques, right?

Well, yeah, except that the total debt is a grand total of US$14 million. Or, using the revenue numbers from the CIA's World Fact Book approximately 1.8% of Mali’s budgetary revenue base for 2002. As a percentage of the total external debt it is even more insignificant a gesture. The US$14 million represents a grand total of 0.42% of the US$3.3 billion in debt (same source).

US$14 million represents to France a grand total of 0.000049% of their 2002 budgetary revenue. If Chirac had simply wrote off the amount, rather than suspending repayment for a few years, it would have had roughly the same significance, namely zero.

Chirac spoke at a joint news conference with Malian leader Amadou Toumani Toure in Bamako, Mali's capital, on the last day of a trip he said was aimed at showing France's support for the former French colonies, which are among the world's poorest nations (emphasis mine).

Did Chirac ever bother to consider why this is? Did he ever stop to consider that French colonial elitism might have played a role in the abject failures that their colonies have a tendency to become? Why did the British colonies suceed, where the French did not? Why did the Spanish colonies succeed where the French did not? The Dutch? The Belgians? The Portuguese?

I'm not saying that France should forgive the Malian debt. The Malians accepted it, they have a moral responsibility to repay it.

But before Chirac sits there and puffs out his chest in magnanimous pride, perhaps he should look to the past to see if he's simply granting reprieve on a debt incurred as a result of previous French "generosity."

It's not a point of pride to help someone out of a problem you (or your nation) created. It's called doing the right thing.

Don't They Know When To Stop?

I swear the Palestinian Authority acts like my kids sometimes: they just don't know when to shut their mouth.

We all are aware that the Palestinians don't really like the idea of limited right of return (basically that they can return the future Palestinian state, but that's it. No RTR in Israel, which is fair in my opinion). Yet the Palestinian Foreign Minister made a pronouncement yesterday that limited right of return is unacceptable (side question, how can you have a foreign minister when you don't have a real country? I want to know so that I can appoint myself dictator for life of some fictious nation).

Too bad. Limited right of return is what the Israelis have been willing to agree to; limited right of return is what you get. It doesn't matter what the "Arab states initiative for peace" (kill all the Jews?) in the UN says. They are not party to the issue. Maybe if they had welcomed their Palestinian brethren, I would feel different. But instead they rejected their responsibility; abdicated their religious responsibility to help their fellow Muslims in need. With that, they also abdicated their legitimate right to have a say in the issue. They are certainly entitled to their opinion, just as I'm entitled to mock it.

Just like I'm going to mock the EU resolution recommending putting Palestine under a mandate should the Road Map fail. Wasn't a Mandate part of the original problem here? Maybe it isn't the US that is the neo-imperialist power here. It kind of sounds like the EU is still harboring elitist feelings, since obviously they feel that they know how to provide security and fairness better than anyone currently involved.

Sometimes it better to just shut up, take what is offered, and move on. But that requires a measure of long term planning that seems to be lacking in the region.

Just like with my for the moment kids.

Stealing Muslim Manhood

Mark Steyn has got a hilarious column today: Muslim paranoia: Enemies made us impotent!

I can't really add much to what he says, but I like this passage:

One of the things I'd feel humiliated about if I lived in the Arab world is that almost all the forms of expression of my anti-Westernism are themselves Western in origin. Pan-Arabism was old-school 19th century nationalism of the type that eventually unified the various German and Italian statelets. Nasserism was transplanted European socialism, Baathism a local anachronistic variant on 'tween-wars Fascist movements. The Arabs even swiped Jew hatred from the Europeans. Though there was certainly friction between Jews and Muslims before the 20th century, it took the Europeans to package a disorganized, free-lance dislike of Jews into a big-time ideology with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Mein Kampf and all the rest.

Even Islamic fundamentalism, though ostensibly a rare example of a homegrown toxin, has, as a practical matter, more in common with European revolutionary movements than with traditional expressions of Islam - an essentially political project piggybacking on an ancient religion to create the ideology of choice for the world's troublemakers.

There's something pathetic about a culture so ignorant even its pathologies have to be imported. But what do you expect? The telling detail of the vanishing penis hysteria is that it was spread by text messaging. You can own a cell phone, yet still believe that foreigners are able with a mere handshake to cause your penis to melt away.

I had never quite thought of it that way, but it's true. They couldn't even create their own hatred of the Jews. Even that, the foundation of many of their lives, is a rip-off.

Go read the column and start your Sunday off with a snicker and a smile.

N. Korea Is Making Kissy, Too

Looks like Iran isn't the only tyrannical dictatorship making lovey-dovey noises these days. Everyone's favorite nutjob dictator, Kim Jong Il has deemed it worthy to study the US security proposal which they recently dismissed as "laughable" and "not worth considering."

Apparently, in return for N. Korean promises to disarm (which we all know to be as ironclad as holey rice paper), the US will: provide economic and humanitarian aid, will open diplomatic ties, build them a nuclear power plant, and we must include a non-aggression treaty.

In essence, their "simultaneous actions," of which they are so fond, boil down to real actions on our part, and mere words and promises on theirs. If Bush agrees to this, it will be one of the worst decisions of his Administration.

Kim Jong Il, Fearless Leader with the Hitler salute, is a man who cannot be trusted. Any agreement with him that requires us to act first is nothing more than a unilateral concession and appeasement. And we all know how that turns out.

Politically Embarassing Sheep?

"...52,000 politically embarrassing Australian sheep..." I don't think the author intended that line to sound as funny as it does. Almost immediately, I started wondering about the politics of these sheep that might make them so embarrassing. Are they Nazi sheep? Perhaps they're pacifist lambs? Or maybe, they're just evil ewes (oh wait, Frank J. tells me that's supposed to be Jews. I was close, right?). No matter, they are now in political exile in Eritrea.

All kidding aside, while it is lamentable what has happened here, I really find some of the reaction to be over the top. It ranges from conspiracy theory:

"However, I would suggest that the timing of the announcement was cleverly orchestrated to ensure that media scrutiny of the condition of the sheep was avoided."

That last one really bugs me. Raising animals for export certainly has to be providing jobs for Australians. I don't know what rationale the Saudis were using for buying the sheep, but I can see how the export trade could help nations that incapable of raising a quantity or quality of livestock that helps to provide sufficient food or clothing materials.

Anytime quantities of livestock are transported over great distances, whether it be by herding them, putting them in a railcar, or putting them on a ship, some people will take offense. Sometimes quite a few of the animals will die, especially if distant countries start treating the ship like the New York Garbage Barge of a few years back, like happened this time. What many of the anti-animal trade folks ignore is that by selling live animals, Australia actually promotes the eventual end of the live animal trade.

Ever heard the phrase give a man a piece of fish and feed him for a day; give him a hook, teach him how to fish and feed him for a lifetime? All the humanitarian food programs out there right now give people the food. We give them grain; we give them meat; we give them dairy products. Australia is giving them the animals, teaching them to care for and to nourish them. Long term, which choice is more humanitarian?

Of course, 52,000 live, politically embarrassing sheep is too much for the animal righters.

Animal rights activists had been calling for the animals to be slaughtered at sea and suggested the unexpected deal with Eritrea had been kept secret to minimise (sp.) a bad press and prevent independent scrutiny of the animals' condition.

So we're going to slaughter them at sea so that independent scrutiny can determine that they are all, in fact, dead - and that they died at sea, so the trade must be stopped. Doesn't that call clash with their goal of protecting the animal's lives, no matter what the consequence on humanity? Kill the sheep, piss off the activists; keep them alive, piss them off anyways. Doesn't quite seem right.

Oh well, must be what happens when you try to ship Christian sheep to a Wahabbi Islamic nation.

Politically embarrassing sheep...I still can't get over how funny that sounds.

The Wall

Ariel Sharon is now talking about building a buffer zone in the Jordan Valley which would encroach into the West Bank. This has the pro-Palestinian side up in arms, as one might expect.

Israel is claiming the fence is needed "to prevent infiltrations by Palestinian suicide bombers." The Palestinians, of course, claim that it is "a ploy to shrink the space allotted to their future state."

I'm sorry, but when I read stories like this, I can absolutely understand the Israeli need for the fence.

A second senior Palestinian militant was arrested at Nablus's Rafidia hospital where he ran a cell of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades from the hospital's basement, the [Israeli security] official said, adding the man was armed and ''in perfect health.''

So the Israelis are going in to take one of the members of that charity known as Hamas, who was accidentally injured while attempting to donate a bomb to the Israeli military, and they come across an armed and healthy militant from the Al-Asqa Martyrs Brigade. Now maybe it's just me, but if I found members of Hamas and the Al-Asqa Brigade, sitting around with a gun, I'd start to think that there was some kind of terrorist planning going on there.

Hamas has been a busy bunch of little charity bees lately. In addition to holding talks with the Al-Asqa people, they have also agreed to "enhance 'field cooperation'" with Islamic Jihad. I'm guessing that they're not trying to increase donations to their latest clothing drive.

Israel is under attack, face it. The terrorist attacks at home and terrorist threats overseas. The Israeli people don't feel safe. So their government is responding to the needs of its people to satisfy that safety need.

The wall certainly won't be perfect. It won't keep out all the terrorists; it won't help with missile threats in Toronto. But it will help much more than the current system. It might even make the sight of Israeli tanks rolling through Palestinian towns less common.

So why do the Palestinians object so vehemently? And why does the US object?

The Palestinians don't fear the fence or the separation per se. They fear the loss of access to success much, much more. They fear that the fence will make impossible the dream of driving Israel back into the sea. The fence would become a symbol of their failure.

The Palestinians know that they have yet to build anything, other than a terrorist network. Oh, they can destroy stuff real well, but they cannot build, they cannot create, they cannot maintain. Without access to all the prosperity that the Israelis have built, Palestine is doomed to failure. Do they have people who are intelligent, hard-working, and prosperous? Some, sure. But the government and the majority of the people are not. They are a people who live in the cult of vicitimhood. They are jealous of the success around them and like petulant children can only scream and throw temper tantrums. It's just that their tantrums include bombs.

I really have problems with our objections to the fence, also.

Washington has criticized the barrier due to its intrusion on territory Palestinians plan for their state.

That completely ignores reality. The Palestinians plan on using all of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza for their "new state." To think, assume, or wish otherwise is the ultimate in blinkered vision. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Authority itself are all dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the dispersion or murder of the Jews currently living there.

So why are we insisting on preventing the Israelis from taking steps to defend themselves. We tell them they have to find non-violent means of controlling the problem. The wall is non-violent. And yet we complain that it might intrude on the land the Palestinians want to use for setting up their new state. Well, so does every house that gets built, every synagogue, every office building - they're all intrusions on land the Palestinians want to use for their new state.

Israel has a right to defend itself. If they think the wall will further that endeavor, more power to them.

Egypt Goes To Sea

I don't think Egypt has been considered a naval power in the world since the days of Antony and Cleopatra. But the news coming out of Alexandria is that Egypt is once again harboring regional ambitions and is expanding it's naval fleet as part of that effort.

Now to a point, I think that this is getting a little overblown. They've added eleven (11) new battle units and what they have on order seems to consist of fast attack craft and Harpoon missiles. In other words, their great naval expansion is the creation of eleven new missile boat units.

That's certainly nothing to sneeze at. Look no further than the USS Stark to see what a missile can do to a modern warship. But, but the same token, this is not the same as the Egyptians suddenly figuring out how to build Arleigh Burke or Ticonderoga type ships.

They're setting up a navy designed to fight a guerilla war on water. It sounds like it's being designed as a raider navy - one that pops up out of nowhere, hits you with a small punch, and leaves before you can react. Against an Israeli Navy of similar composition, this could certainly be viewed as a significant threat. But against a true blue water navy designed for power projection, like the US Navy or the Royal Navy, this is more like an irritant than a threat.

But it is something that bears watching. Today it's fast attack craft. What will it be tomorrow?

Middle East Roundup

Found a few interesting news items and editorials coming out of the Middle East today.

World's Help Is Needed to Rebuild Iraq - Iraq's charge d'affaires in Moscow has a great article in today's Moscow Times imploring some of the hesitant nations of the world to join in the rebuilding of Iraq, today. The arguments he uses are the same ones that many bloggers have been using for quite a while, most importantly that Iraq is rebuilding more than its infrastructure - it's rebuilding its social fabric.

Time for an International Pro-Democracy Tribune for Iran - A well argued call for more peaceful action designed towards pressing the Iranian regime to the breaking point.

The Iranian pro-democracy movement is carrying a double burden of freeing Iran from a Medieval state and at the same time freeing the world from a major sponsor of terrorism. It makes all sense for the Western democracies to support the Iranian pro-democracy movement and it makes perfect sense for Iranian movement to seek that support and cooperate with the international forces that are willing to help our struggle for secularism, democracy, and human rights, as long as there are no strings attached, and it is all in the open and not in secret deals.

IAF Film Shows Critics of Bombing Misinformed - It's a case where I would like to snicker at the peaceniks claiming that Israel is the big bad evil empire killing those poor Palestinians without warning. But at the same time, it looks like many of these politicians were probably ambushed, with having their prerecorded sound bites airing right after the expose of the video. I'll reserve my snickers until they have a fair opportunity to retract their tripe. In other words, until tomorrow.

Political correctness makes Gitmo a sieve - The problems at Gitmo are really ridiculous and of our making. But we should still be able to put some faith in the guys down there.

Jew-boy's Site Goes Dooooooown!!!!!!! - Found via A Small Victory. I hate to say it, but this sounds like a case of Haganah getting hit with a less sophisticated, more demonstrative, version of his own medicine. He gets hosting companies to refuse to host Jihad sites, the Jihadis take down the hosting company to shut him down. Tit for tat. I think most of its importance comes from the fact that it shows that we are in a multi-front war with technology being just one of the battlefields.

The French Take A Stand

Well, at least the French people did. Or some of them. OK, so it was just the smokers, and it was a rather selfish stand. But it was a stand! It's progress.

Turns out that the French government, architects of the heat-wave debacle, actually is concerned about the health of the average Frenchman on the street. They are out to reduce the health issues associated with smoking by raising the price of cigarettes to the point where only the gainfully employed French will be able to chose between a pack of cigarettes or a new Peugeot.

The French people, particularly those under the age of 25 (who still have several years to wait before getting something resembling a real job), have decided that enough is enough. Ninety percent of tobacco shops closed today. French folks were running around going through nicotine withdrawals and being more cranky than usual (and probably much more friendly to smoking American tourists than they usually are).

Will this be enough to reverse the socialist backslide of France? No. But, if there are enough of these mini-revolts, enough of these outrages, maybe, just maybe the people will start to figure out that Chirac and his cronies are not the great people they like to pretend to be.

France Threatens Libya!

I'll bet that old Muammar is just shaking in his boots at this one:

French President Jacques Chirac urged Libya on Saturday to reach a deal on a UTA payout or face the consequences.

This is rich. France, the military behemoth, is threatening Libya, a nation trained in the tactics of terrorism, with "consequences." Will they talk the EU in to attacking Muammar with the dreaded "scowl of disapproval?" Or will they threaten to cut off relations with Libya? Or perhaps they could figure out a reason to threaten Libya with a NATO (read: US) invasion? What are these mysterious consequences? Does Chirac even know the meaning of the word?

Well, ok, he probably does after the American tourist boycott, but does France really have that much control over the potential tourism industry in Tripoli? Will TotalELF quit paying their bribes on the oil contracts?

Sorry, but Chirac and UTA are coattailling on the Pan Am 103 settlement here. With 103, a real timeline was put together, showing each of the steps involved, each of the people involved and how it all tied Libya into the ultimate destruction of the plane over Lockerbie. With the UTA bombing, it has always been generally accepted that Libya was likely involved, but the airtight case like was made for 103 doesn't seem to exist. There are holes, there are questions that still need to be answered.

And from all appearances, Chirac and UTA know this. If they had a solid and convincing case against Libya, they would be presenting it. Instead, they seem to just be taking a wild stab at extorting more money from the Libyan government simply because they paid more for 103, than they were willing to pay for the UTA bombing, which they have never admitted to and for which they were making restitution only in the hopes of trying to normalize their position in the world.

If this were a normal or initial negotiation, I might feel more strongly about Libya needing to stick with one issue. But this isn't normal. This isn't the first go around. France is trying to up the ante, after the cards have been played.

That's wrong. And as such, if Libya has decided that they want to link this negotiation for more money with another situation in which Libya feels it was wronged, well, that's their right and this is a justifiable point at which to exercise that right.

Also, aren't negotiators supposed to be impartial? The lead French negotiator had his father killed in the bombing. He stands to personally profit financially from any extra extortion from Libya and emotionally if he can "punish" Libya even more.

Sorry, but I got to take Muammar's side on this one.

Holland To Dump The P-3 Orion

Holland has announced that it will be eliminating it's two squadrons of P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft. Germany has reportedly considering an offer to buy 10 of them.

The P-3 is one of the best maritime patrol aircraft that has ever been brought to market. Dumping the two squadrons with no replacements is a very shortsighted move by the Ministry of Defense. Holland has a (relatively) long coastline and the P-3 renowned for its patrolling abilities.

I'm sure that the MOD looked at the current threat analysis and determined that there was very little threat that the P-3 could efficiently counter. But what about in 5-10 years? What if the Chinese do create a real blue water navy that can place a threat a few hundred miles off the coast of Amsterdam? What if the Russians decide they don't want to play nice anymore? What if some terrorist led nation finds the money to buy a real seaborne capability? Do the Dutch really want to place their trust in the French or the Germans to protect them?

This is a short sighted move, with some nasty long term potential consequences.

UPDATE: It looks like the US Navy is thinking about doing the same to its P-3 Reserve Squadrons.

Iranian Fundmentalism Leading To Secularism

The brother of Iran's President is warning the hardliners of Iran that their violent and oppressive fundamentalism increasingly pushing the country towards secularism.

Of course it is. People don't want to live in fear or under the oppressive thumb of a thugocracy. People may be ok with a government based on Islamic ideals, so long as they have rights beyond being virtual servants of the state.

"The constitution is certainly not perfect and needs some updating but still the same constitution could be used as a basis for democracy in Iran if the laws would really be respected and not be individually be interpreted and misused in the name of Islam," Khatami said.

That statement by Khatami almost seems reasonable. I believe that, more than anything else however, it points towards a reformist pressure building in Iran - one that the hardliners cannot contain anymore. The student protests earlier this year really seem to have placed in motion a series of events that are slowly, but inexorably, leading to the eventual downfall of the hardline Iranian regime.

I think now the question is no longer whether the Iranian regime will fall, but what type of government will fill the resulting vacuum? Will it be a true democracy? A republic? A monarchy? Or simply another variation of an Islamic thugocracy?

Only time will tell, but time is running out.

"Temple Mount Is More Important Than Peace"

When I first read the headline on this story, I cringed. I'm not one generally given to extremeism and this seemed to be crossing that line. But after reading it, I absolutely agree with the premise.

The Temple Mount is, most certainly, the most important piece of religious ground in the world. More than the Vatican, more than Mecca, more so even than the Church of the Nativity; the Temple Mount plays a key role in all three of the major monotheistic religions.

But it has a special importance to the Jews. The Christians controlled the Mount for a while during the Crusades, but we never really went back. The Muslims controlled it and built a couple of temples on it, but it is relatively insignificant to the Muslims - Mecca and Medina are far more important. But the Jews, every year for nearly two thousand years - "Next year in Jerusalem."

Jerusalem and the Temple Mount aren't just important to Judaism - they almost are Judaism. The city and the Wall are the physical links to everything in the Jewish history. There is no place else of any real significance in Judaism, just Jerusalem.

Would the Jews survive without Jerusalem? Yes, they did for nearly two millenia. But if something were to happen to their beloved Jerusalem, they would only return to the mantra - "Next year in Jerusalem." And they would find a way to either retake the city if conquered or to rebuild the city if destroyed.

It is the idea of Jerusalem, the home of God on earth, the site of the Temple, and now the site of the Western Wall that is so important to the Jews. Jerusalem represents all that was good and pure and right. Jerusalem is as much an ideal as it is a physical location.

And in all of that, the Temple Mount is the highest ideal in the city. The Temple Mount is everything about Jerusalem raised expotentially. To voluntarily surrender the Temple Mount would be tantamount to voluntarily abandoning the ideals of the Jewish faith.

The Temple Mount is absolutely critical to the Jewish faith. It is a physical representation of that faith. Walking away from it cannot and should not be an option for the Jews.

There cannot be another "Next year in Jerusalem."

What's That Sound?

Hmmm. What's that sound I hear? Might it be the sound of yet another nail being driven into the coffin of the Iranian thugocracy?

This has got to be one of the worst nightmares for the Iranian regime: a woman, who is strong, intelligent, and is now a Nobel Peace Prize winner - all along with the American military playing in the sandbox next door.

In times past, the thugs would have waited for a very short while and then they would have made Mrs. Ebadi "disappear." And soon after that "natural causes" would lead to her "untimely demise."

But that option is no longer available. It worked in the past due to the separation from the rest of the human rights respecting world, but now with the Americans and British within a few hundred miles of Tehran instead of thousands, the game has changed.

And it's a game that the Iranian regime can't react to and can't play.

What's that sound? It's the sound of freedom breaking free.

The Cockroaches Scurry From The Light

One of the advantages of sitting in the tent is that I get to listen to the AM radio. Today, while listening, I caught a quick blurb about a terrorist attack in Gaza that killed three American bodyguards.

All of the usual suspects realize that this is just about the worst possible situation event that could have happened. Arafat has referred to it as an "awful crime." Hamas and Hezbollah have both tried to distance themselves as much as possible, claiming that they do not deliberately attack Americans.

Well of course they're going to distance themselves from this. Of course they're go to deplore the attack. Someone, I think it was one of the PA ministers, complained that this attack was going to set back the Palestinian cause significantly. And they're right. It will set back the cause.

The Americans have been leaning on Israel for years. We have tried to force Israel to act contrary to their own interest. We have encouraged Israel to deliberately endanger themselves in the name of "peace." In the fight for the Palestinian State, America has been the most effective friend that the Palestinian clan has had. We have been more effective than the Soviet Union, more effective than Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, and even more effective than the EU. We have accomplished more than any of the wars of Arab aggression, more than any of the terrorist attacks, and more than any of the trite anti-Israeli embargoes being conducted by the Arabs or their friends.

To attack us would be to attack the only real, effective friend that the Palestinian people. To attack us or inflame us would be to unleash the full, unrestrained fury of the IDF on the terrorists. A deliberate attack on us would leave as the greatest Palestinian weapon the dreaded EU scowl of disapproval. The Palestinian Statehood movement would become as relevant as the Mexican Separatists Of The Greater Southern Region Of Northern South Dakota Statehood movement.

Given all that, is it any wonder that Arafat and the "charitable" organizations of Palestine are running scared from this? They know that this is the worst of all possible worlds for them. They know that fessing up would mean the end of their attempts at legitimization.

To the total number of dead in the conflict, we now add three more Americans, deliberately murdered. At what point will the Americans decide "enough is enough?" Israel has already decided it and is ready to take decisive action. Are we?

Can I Be Homeless?

Gee, here's a deal that needs to be offered to me: Arabs in Rafiach were being paid $1000 a month for the right to be made "homeless" by the IDF and to get a new house, in a better neighborhood, paid for by the Palestinian Authority. All they have to do is to allow a few illegal arms to be smuggled through tunnels in their homes. The PA, being the personal little fiefdom of that renowned Nobel winning terrorist Arafat, was, of course, allowing these weapons to only be used in self-defense - like when a Hamas or Hezbollah "charity worker" feels threatened by an infant Israeli (They have good reason to fear Israeli babies, as all baby buggies are now little mobile weapons caches</sarcasm>.).

I'm sorry, but I really have trouble feeling bad for people whose greatest goal in life seems to be getting their house razed for propaganda purposes, knowing that they will end up in a house that is probably nicer than mine. I have trouble feeling sorry for these poor, homeless arms smugglers who were netting an extra grand a month in a place where that's a king's ransom. I have problems with the "woe is me" claims, when they're really issues of their own making.

$1000 a month to claim professional victimhood status. What a deal.

World Day Against The Death Penalty

The EU certainly does have some lofty utopian goals. In their latest attempt at spreading their own brand of culture, they will be organizing the first ever "World day against the death penalty."

This is the equivalent of the ever feared EU scowl of disapproval. Do they really think that a day that will undoubtedly turn into an anti-American propagandafest is going to influence any American but the weakest of character?

If the Eurocrats don't want capital punishment in their confederation, that's fine. That's their business, their country.

We've decided that we do accept the idea. They need to learn to live with it. If they want to hold a "day" to promote their agenda, that's ok by me - just don't expect us to really care.

Removing Arafat = Terrorism?

Hosni Mubarak has come out and declared that the removal of Arafat would be a "terrorist act."

I fail to see the equivalency between a bombing that kills 19 and the exile of an ancient terrorist. Are we to believe that Arafat should be allowed to live in relative comfort in his Ramallah safehouse, while "his people" continue to murder and maim the Israelis? Is it as evil to force Arafat to sleep on another cot, while Israelis suffer sleeplessly from the pain of the shrapnel of the nail-filled terrorist bombs? Should we really feel sorry for him? Should we feel empathy for his "failure" to control his people?

Absolutely not. Arafat has failed completely in his responsibilities as a national leader. He made certain commitments to the roadmap, which he has failed to uphold. He has lost any protections afforded by his status as a leader, as he has failed to lead.

I'm sorry, but exiling Arafat is not terrorism. It is an exercise of common sense and safety. If Hosni is so concerned about Yasser's well-being, perhaps he'd be willing to put Arafat up in Egypt.

But somehow, I don't see that happening.

Jails, Cell Phones, & Safety

This is rich. First, the Palestinians are protesting the fact that the Israelis are using panes of glass instead of intertwined wire grids to separate prisoners from the their visitors. Apparently, this is some sort of violation of their basic human rights. They should probably hope that they never end up in an American prison - we have been using those glass panes for years.

Now why would the Israelis start doing more to separate the terrorists from the general population? Do the Palestinians believe that these prisoners pose no public safety risk (well, at least to the Israelis)?

Look at this other piece from the same site: Palestinian Prisoner Gets Doctorate On "Tolerance" By Phone.

The new Doctor earned his degree via a cell phone. He dictated the paper to his wife on it. He presented it to the University of Nablus via cell phone.

His wife bought him copies of the thesis, while he was in detention.

Think there isn't a public safety issue here? IMRA points out:

Israeli observers have wondered for years how long it would take prison officials to finally take measures to prevent visiting families from passing on cellular telephones and other contraband to Palestinians being held in jail. The lack of a glass partition all these years has created a situation that terrorists held by Israel were able to continue to maintain essentially constant contact with the outside world - giving orders and even participating in interviews broadcast on Arab radio stations.

The whole point of involuntary confinement is to separate public safety threats from general society. If the smuggling of cell phones allows them to stay in contact with the broader world and allows them to continue to influence events, that is a safety concern.

Israel has every right, actually every responsibility, to install the glass panes. It is a matter of safety for both the public and for the prisoners. The public issue is pretty clear cut, but image what would happen to the prisoners should a weapon or explosive be smuggled in. As long as the prisoners are under Israeli control, Israel has a moral responsibility to show concern for their well-being - no matter how vile the criminals are. If they believe that installing the glass panes furthers that goal, then they need to be installed. There really is no question about it.

And if the Palestinians don't like the glass panes, there is always another option, one that most people choose.

Stay out of trouble.

Hamas: A Peace Loving Charity?

The Central Bank of Lebanon has begun a probe into the finances of Hamas. Hamas' response? Not an offer of cooperation; not an acceptance that as a charity their financial dealings should be open to review. No they label the probe as a "big mistake or a fatal mistake."

Doesn't sound like they're all too charitable to me. That sounds more like a threat, specifically a terroristic threat.

I'd like to hear Hamas try to reconcile this kind of threat with their position that they are a peace loving charity. I've never heard the Red Cross make veiled and not so veiled threats whenever their finances were probed. If there is nothing to hide, why the uproar?

Are Things Getting Ready To Change In Israel

Yesterday, in a post about Israel considering a deal to release terrorists, I said:

...they will have to deal with more than a few of these terrorists again...

Today, we find out that the Rosh Hashana terrorist was a member of Islamic Jihad and had, in fact, just been released from an Israeli prison two months ago. Sometimes the chickens come home to roost much quicker than expected.

A few days ago I also noted an article in which Israel was grounding pilot who were refusing to fly missions in the territories. Today, we find out that at least one is having second thoughts as he has realized that he had made a grave mistake in signing. The Israeli government is giving every indication that they will allow one opportunity for these 27 to retract their statement or else they will be out of the IAF. And it seems that some are starting to realize that the government is serious about maintaining discipline within the ranks.

We also have an article today in which the Israel News Agency is lambasting the Israeli newspaper industry, claiming that the newspapers are failing to lead in a time of national crisis.

The sense that I'm getting is that the war in Israel is about to escalate, again. The timing of everything is just starting to seem too coincidental. I'd be willing to bet that plans are being made within the IAF for how to handle the escalation, which is why the pilots signed the petition. But under normal circumstances, I don't think that even in Israel, you have seen as quick and as forceful a reaction, unless something was being planned.

And I think that the Israeli people are getting really tired of taking the high road all the time. They seem to be tiring of the constant attacks, especially when they're being perpetrated by repeat offenders. And it's starting to show in the tone of some of the articles in the media and about the media in Israel.

Israel seems to be a nation bracing for a widespread conflict. Just how widespread and how soon remains to be seen.

The Value Of Life In The Middle East

In the latest of the incredibly long string of terrorist attacks, a Palestinian terrorist has gone and killed a 28 year old man and a two month old baby during Rosh Hashana.

Imagine, if you will for a moment, the screams of religious intolerance that would be coming out from all the anti-Israel groups (like the EU) if Israel waited until the feast to mark the end of Ramadan to go out and start assassinating terrorists in their homes, using the holiday as tool for increasing their odds of success.

Is that really different from what happened here, outside of the fact that toddler hadn't built a single bomb, fired a single gun, or even thrown a single rock?

Tolerance is a two way street. If the Palestinians expect tolerance and respect for their holidays and high holy days, they had best start respecting those of the Israelis. Unless of course they are not truly interested in tolerance or peace, but merely in driving the Jews back into the sea (oops, were we not supposed to say that?).

The pictures in the linked article are misleading, but this statement towards the end is not:

Israeli newspapers reported Friday that several Iranian and Lebanese prisoners held in England and Germany might be traded for information on missing Israeli airman Ron Arad, who Israel says is held by Iran after being shot down over Lebanon in 1986.

As part of the emerging deal, Israel would free several hundred Arab prisoners, many of them Palestinians terrorists, in exchange for Israeli businessman Elhanan Tannenbaum and the bodies of three soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah in 2000.

Concern for their citizens. Israel is discussing turning over hundreds of terrorists for 1 live man, 3 bodies and some information about a single soldier.

That has got to be just about one of the most lopsided deals since the Indians sold Manhattan for some beads. But it is demonstrative of just how important each and every Israeli citizen is to their government. Undoubtedly, they will have to deal with more than a few of these terrorists again and yet they consider a deal that will bring back one man and will bring closure for four families.

Too bad the Palestinians don't have a similar respect for the sanctity of human life. If so, there would most likely be nice peaceful negotiations instead of the violent, suicidal Intifada.

So What's Happeniing In Iran?

Well, most importantly, today is the first day of school.

Apparently, there are already some incidents of dissent and protest taking part throughout the country. If this is true, this is great news as it would mean that the students haven't lost their nerve since the end of the last term, when the government started really cracking down on them.

So now the question becomes: is Iran ready for another revolution?

This last article gives a pretty good recap of the similarities between the current situation in Iran and the Iran of 1979. The author loses some of his credibility with statements like "The Islamic Republic was voted for by an enormous majority of the people after the revolution in 1979, and this gives it a certain legitimacy no other Iranian rulers have had before." But so were Stalin, Castro and every other oppressive dictator who has learned to exploit "democracy" as a means of sating the masses.

But again: is Iran ready for another revolution, whether peaceful or violent? I think the answer is yes.

The students certainly are. And what about their parents - the children of the revolution? I am starting to sense (I have no proof that this is true, it is only my opinion) that their parents are doubting the value of the Islamic Republic. Why would they doubt it?

Because the revolution has not delivered. The Iranian people traded a single oppressor in the Shah for a board of oppressors. Things have not improved in Iran since 1979. If anything it can be argued that things are worse due to the fact that the people are now subject to the edicts and interpretations of the theothugs, which are not necessarily grounded in either precedent or reality.

If the parents truly believed in and bought into the revolution and its good, do you think that they would be tacitly allowing their children to risk themselves to effect change? I don't think they would.

Having the US military stationed in Iraq may hamper the maneuvering room of the reformists within the Iranian regime, but does that really matter? Have they truly "reformed" anything, other than cosmetically?

I think that the US military being so close both emboldens the student reformers and constrains the Iranian regime for fear of provoking us into an invasion. It may make the endgame of the thugocracy more violent, but I think it will also expedite the change that is so very necessary for the well-being and advancement of the Iranian people.

School's in session. This year's lesson should be interesting.

Did Sweden Make A Good Choice?

So, now that Sweden has voted "no" on the Euro referendum, the question arises: what price will there be for sovereignty?

The EU ministers have already begun their campaign of disapproving scowls in Sweden's general direction. They have already begun the standard bully tactic of making implied threats about the relevance of Sweden in the EU. In short, the EU has begun their normal process of dithering about, making lots of noise, while accomplishing nothing.

It's pretty obvious to just about anyone who has paid any attention to the Eurozone financial "challenges" recently, that the big countries - like France and Germany, in particular - view the Euro currency controls as mere inconveniences to their fiscal policy. But God help a Luxembourg or Norway or Ireland should they need to "bend" the rules to ensure their national fiscal stability.

I believe that the EU is showing itself to be more and more a power and control grab by the big nations. There is a definite two tiered structure forming in the EU: France and Germany (with Belgium tagging along) constitute the top tier - where rules are set in stone only for others. The rest of the EU countries are rapidly becoming second class citizens in their own nation. Think I'm wrong? Look at the financial gyrations that Greece had to go through to gain admittance to the Euro club, only so that France and Germany could flaunt those very same rules in the name of economic stability.

So what price does Sweden pay for their "No?"

They might lose some decision making influence? Did they ever really have any, other than the token influence that the Franco-German axis would throw them? They might not be able to fully participate in the Euroland market? Sounds to me like codespeak for they won't be able to fully subsidize Franco-German largesse. Just how bad is the "No?"

...Sweden's crown rallied from early falls on relief after a year's uncertainty.

"Traders are again looking at fundamentals -- the foreign trade surplus, strong public finances, higher interest rates and prospects of economic growth faster than in the euro-zone," said Peter Kaplan, economist at ABN AMRO.

Sounds like a much better deal to me. Sweden's economy, while heavily statist, is at least sound.

The EU, for all its high ideals, in becoming a textbook study in elitist governance. If you're not French or German, you are one of the great unenlightened masses who need guidance from the true leaders, as France and Germany always have been (at least in their minds). Is the vote of a Greek or a Swede or a Spaniard or even (for the moment) a Briton worth as much in the EU as that of a Frenchman or a German? In theory yes; in practice - not a chance.

And therein lies the crux of the EU problem: it's a great theory, but a terrible practice.

The Swedes made the right choice. They stayed Swedish instead of becoming Euro-Swedes.

This Is No Better Than The ICC

An Iranian torture victim is suing the Iranian regime in a US court for violations of international law.

I've expressed my displeasure with the arrogance of the Belgian courts and the ICC with their assumptions of universal jurisdiction. I am of the opinion that the concept of universal jurisdiction is wrong. So it really bugs me to see someone trying to turn the US courts in the same direction.

I feel bad for the guy, I really do. But the US court system is not the place for him to be redressing his grievances. We have no, and should not have any, jurisdiction over the actions of a sovereign government, even if they're absolutely despicable.

Our court systems are already filled with too many cases without true merit. This is another one. The guy has been wronged, no doubt about it. But show me where the US courts have authority in this type of case.

I don't believe that there is authority and as such, I hope that this case is thrown out before it goes any further.

What A Wonderful, Wacky World We Live In

Reading along this morning I came across two articles in the New York Post that just hit as being a riot.

The first, 'ALIVE' OSAMA PLOTS DOOMSDAY BIO-STRIKE, describes everyone's favorite terrorist clown as living in "good health" in a "secure, remote mountain lair".

All that I can picture is Osama sitting in a big Dr. Evil type lair trying to figure out how to work his fancy Captain Kirk chair. Up and down, go around a few circles in each direction and then get dumped off. A "secure, remote mountain lair" just seems to add a level of comedy to the whole Osama story that makes it hard to take the whole thing seriously anymore. The threat of terrorism is still real and serious, but Osama himself seems to have been turned into the Chevy Chase of terrorist leaders.

The second article, CARDS TARGET TOP ISRAELIS shows just how far "me, too"-ism has gone in the world today.

The deck of cards handed out in Iraq was a novel idea. At the time, I thought it was a cute, but effective, way of targeting certain people.

Then the Israeli paper Ma'ariv create a deck of 34 Palestinian terrorists.

Now Hamas has taken it a step further and has created a deck of their 34 most wanted Israelis, but they took it to a new level of classlessness by "X"ing over Rechavam Zeevi, the Israeli Tourism Minister who was assassinated.

In the course of what, four months, the "most wanted" deck has gone from a cutesy gimmick to a tired and trite cliche.

I just find it funny to see how much effort and thought went into Hamas creating their deck, only to have it come out being such a crass embarrassment to decency. In their quest to go "Me, too! Me, too!" as quickly as possible they have once again damaged their cause in the community of decent people. In their one-upmanship with the "X", they crossed the line and went to totally tasteless.

But I still can't get the picture of Osama trying to work his chair out of my head.

Environmental Colonialism

As I mentioned last night, I bought a copy of The Independent Review and have been reading through it in between football games and spending time with the kids. Today I read through an excellent article by Robert H. Nelson that discusses how the environmentalist movement in Africa has taken on the attributes of being neo-colonialist.

He starts by examining the traits of the environmentalist movement which have brought us to this point. I have always been annoyed with the dismissal of fact in favor of fiction that the environmentalists are so good at, but I had never put my finger on exactly what it was that made me so uncomfortable with the environmentalist movement.

Mr. Nelson points it out very succinctly as the Messianic qualities of the environmentalist message:

For many of its followers today, environmentalism has been a substitute for fading mainline Christian and progressive faiths-its religious quality obvious to any close observer of its workings. Its language is often overtly religious: "saving" the earth from rape and pillage; building "cathedrals" in the wilderness; creating a new "Noah's Ark" with laws such as the Endangered Species Act; pursuing a new "calling" to preserve the remaining wild areas; and taking steps to protect what is left of the "Creation" on earth. At the heart of the environmental message is a story of the fall of mankind from a previous, happier, and more natural and innocent time-a secular vision of the biblical fall from the Garden of Eden.

It is this quality, the false religion, that bugs me more than anything else. Zealots, manipulators and charlatans create new religions to advance their goals. An honest person with an honest agenda doesn't need to hide behind a facade of false morality.

But the environmentalists have raised their cause to the level of being their religion, complete with vicious, unrelenting, and uncompromising attacks on any heretical thought that is counter to their ultimate purpose.

The fundamentalism of the environmentalists rivals that of the Iranian clerics. They have shown a willingness to silence their critics by any means necessary. They have taken to terrorism using the "righteousness" of their cause as their Machiavellian justification for the evil and deadly means. And most importantly, they have shown a complete and utter disregard for anyone who might be harmed or disadvantaged by the environmentalists’ actions.

The worst shame here is that the prosaic goals of environmentalism: cleaner air, protecting rare plants or animals, and acting as a counterbalance to unchecked expansion are all worthwhile causes and goals in and of themselves. If they were sought after in a reasoned and responsible manner it would be virtually impossible, except for the most cold-hearted person, to rationally object. But instead of the reasoned and responsible route, the goals have been hijacked and are now used, much like children by the Messianic For-The-Children cult (another group that annoys me to no end), to force people to accept otherwise unreasonable positions.

There is no justification for allowing people - human beings - to die because of a "need" to protect some particular species or landscape. Yet that is exactly what the environmentalists have been doing in Africa for years. They pursue policies that allow the tsetse fly to flourish while denying the native Africans the ability or right to use the land to provide for themselves. So the Africans starve as the environmentalists tell them that they cannot produce food in fertile and traditional areas. The environmentalists are issuing their edicts about what is permissible and what is not from their ivory towers without a care, concern, or shred of knowledge about what their actions are actually doing to the people - or to their beloved environment.

The neo-colonialist actions of the environmentalists are proving to be nearly as deadly to humans and as damaging to the environment as the hated colonialist actions were. And like their imperialist predecessors, they have no clue. They take the opinion that they, and they alone, are the sole arbiters of right and wrong when it comes to the environment.

And like their colonialist predecessors, they are wrong. In time they will be as hated as the British, French, and other colonial powers were. In time, the Africans will throw off the fundamentalist environmentalist yoke just like they did the colonialist yoke.

Hopefully it won't require as many dead before the Africans can have back their land again this time.

Define Persona Non Grata

So if you were going to use an example to define the term persona non grata, would it be possible to find a better example than this.

I would have assumed that it would be a diplomatic faux pas for the ambassador - the person who is responsible for maintaining goodwill and open communications with the host country - to make comments like calling the national leader a "lout" or the referring to the country as "paranoid."

Israel is a country in which people tend to look over their shoulders a bit more or they look at people more suspiciously. This is absolutely true and was something that I noticed (and noticed myself doing) while I was there. But isn't it true that they have justification? If Parisian busses were being blown up on a regular basis the good ambassador would probably be a bit more understanding.

Whether the comments "were made in the course of a private party" or not is irrelevant. If they were made it signals a serious respect issue with the new ambassador. France shouldn't send him and Israel shouldn't allow him in.

But he would probably make a great French ambassador to the Palestinian Authority.