The Noble Pundit

There is a price to turning us away

Well, I thought we would make an example of the French first, but it looks like I was wrong. The WaPo is reporting that we have taken back Turkey’s aid package, all $15B worth.

Many of our allies have been turning their backs on us thinking there would be no repercussions. Now Turkey has 15 billion repercussions. Think they regret partying in the streets after the vote was defeated?

This may actually turn out to be a blessing in disguise. By taking incentives away from a real ally we have shown a willingness to repay those who delight in our "distress." Had we taken something from France, no one would care because that relationship is already so poisoned. But to take from Turkey, that is powerful.

I have a feeling that the Turks will still eventually get the money, but it will be a while. They left us out in the cold; we're going to leave them high and dry and twisting in the wind for a while.

There is a price to pay for hanging us out. Our allies can just ask the Turks.

Friends: Positions and Views

What is it with our "allies?" Are they really so naive as to think that they can openly disrespect us and not have any ramifications? The French are still trying to find the piece of their backside that has been removed in the last month- courtesy of a pissed American populace. The Canadian government has proven itself to be a little quicker on the uptake- there has only been one major insult to the US in the last couple of months. And now the Mexicans think they can get something for free.

Apparently, the Mexican government is becoming concerned about a potential backlash if they vote against us in the UN. Well, duh. Of course we're going to get ticked. They want to return to pre-9/11 relations where we're "amigos" with absolute friendship and happiness all around. They're worried about making a decision that might upset us.

Sometimes playing with the big kids on the block means having to make decisions that will tick somebody off. If one of those big kids is a close friend of yours, you have to take that into account. If you're worried about the strength of the friendship, give in and make the decision your friend wants you to. If the relationship is as strong as you think it was pre-9/11, make whatever decision you want, trusting that the bond is strong enough to survive the strain. But do not, under any circumstances, back away from making a decision. It only proves that you're spineless and weak, even your friend will hold you in contempt if you don't.

The Mexican government has a decision to make. If they don't want to go to war, and they believe the bond to be strong, they need to say so - and be ready for the consequences of that decision. We may get upset; we may retaliate. But we will forgive a principled stand.

If they're concerned about the strength of the bond that ties us then they need to vote for the war, regardless of the position they want to take.

But they can't avoid the decision and expect us to be agreeable. Friends can disagree. Friends can have polar opposite views. But friends always know where the other stands.

It's decision time Vincente. What's your call?

Does This Mean Billy Bass Is Jesus?

A 20lb carp has apparently chosen to reveal itself as the one true God and has spoken to the world in a fish shop in New York. According to this story in the Guardian the fish began speaking in Hebrew as the shopkeepers went to club it. Speculation in the Guardian ranges from the event was fictional to the event is foretelling the coming of Armageddon in the war in Iraq (which would be very interesting since Revelations is a Christian book, not Hebrew).

What do I think it is? I think it is a sign that the world has gone nuts. We have Guinea at the head of the human rights commission; Syria on the Security Council and Iraq is going to be in charge of disarmament. Germany is lecturing us on the virtues of pacifism and France is trying to assert itself to do something more than surrender. The world has been turned on its head and a 20lb talking carp is the final proof.

I knew there was a reason I didn't like seafood.

Today in Libertarian History

On this date, the Ides of March, in 44BC, Brutus struck a blow for the libertarian cause. He cut down the dictator Julius Caesar and attempted to campaign for the election of Harry Browne. After an electoral defeat, Brutus fled to the east, but was denied passage through Turkey and was eventually defeated by Caesar's adopted son, Augustus, who then proceeded to establish a world power based on arrogance and conceit, which the French are today trying to emulate (sans the military power).

Random thoughts about why I blog

I was thinking about what this site means to me. This really came about after Donald Sensing over at One Hand Clapping quoted my Why We Fight essay right below a quote from Colin Powell. I was so excited and happy when I saw Mr. Sensing’s post that I immediately called my dad and steered him over to it. I then found my ranking on Blogstreet and noticed that I was ranked somewhere around #99,000 out of 107,000+. It then hit me that if I moved up one spot per day, I could be at #1 in about 271 years. That was a very painful reality check to say the least.

(Get ready for a bunch of contradictions.)

I write this for me. It is a compilation of my opinions and thoughts. As I write it, I really don’t care what other people think. This is me. But I do care what other people think, as shown by my reaction to Mr. Sensing’s reference to my blog. I hate being wrong, but I want people to debate me on my positions. This weblog is for my mental exercise, but I want others to be able to comprehend it. If you don’t like my blog, go away. Just keep checking back from time to time because I like watching my counter go up. The number of visitors I get isn’t important, but I do check my site statistics and referrer logs two or three times a day. I have a severe dislike for stupid contradictions, yet I just wrote a paragraph worth of them.

I’m truly happy that most people seem to find something they like here. It really makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. If you find something you don’t like – tell me. I may tell you too bad, but I’d still like to hear it anyways.

So who’s at #99,091? Got to figure out how to beat out my next target.

Zell Miller wants to dump the filibuster

Zell Miller has an interesting post over a Free Republic in which he is proposing doing away with the 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster in the Senate. In his post, Senator Miller trots out all the usual arguments against allowing for filibusters. Every time I see these arguments, I keep having to remind myself that there is a reason for the filibuster.

Senator Miller points out correctly that only in the Senate can a 41 vote minority stop a 59 vote majority. And there is a legitimate reason for that.

The 60 votes needed for cloture were put in place to protect the minority. When our nation was founded and the Constitution was written, the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that there was protection in place for the minority. There was a fear (well founded at the time) that a simple majority would allow the party in power to effectively outlaw the minorities. In the House, directly elected by the people, a simple majority rules. But the Senate, which originally was chosen by the State Legislatures, was supposed to be the more dignified and more deliberative body. I believe the concept of "advise and consent" went beyond just on nominations. I believe that it also extended to reigning in the sometimes extreme views of the rabble in the House. The Senate was supposed to help to weed out bad bills and to help neaten up the good ones before they were sent to the President for signing.

The Constitution is actually designed to set up a minimalist Federal government. The 60 votes for cloture was designed to give the minority a chance to stop unnecessary bills from being passed. It is also to give the minority the ability to demand a rewrite of a bill to make it more acceptable. The 60 vote majority is not needed to pass every bill or motion, just the less palatable or more controversial ones.

The biggest problem we have today is not the filibuster, but its unintended use by the opposition. The filibuster was not designed to be a tool of blatant partisanship. It was designed as a tool of ensuring our Congress stuck to the ideals of the Constitution. We don't need to reform or eliminate the filibuster, we need to reform or eliminate the people who abuse it. You want things to change? Vote for candidates who will use the filibuster responsibly.

This is a little much even for me

I was sitting here this morning catching up the reading I didn't get to do this week. I found this very extreme conspiracy theory about the French nuclear threat in the case of war against Iraq.

Now I'll be the first to admit that Jacques "Iraq" Chirac has lost his mind. He has already sold the Spaghetti-Os (Franco-American) relationship up the river to protect his buddy Saddam. But I really don't think that there is a snowball's chance that he's going to actually try to pop a nuke on us. It's bad enough that he's helped Saddam to drink the hemlock, but I really don't see Chirac doing the same. For Jacques, it's all fun and games until he gets hurt.

All that being said, we probably should keep a little tighter rein on the French missile boats. And should they even so much as make us think they might do something, we need to send them down to Davy Jones locker. Someone needs to tell Jacques "Iraq" that he is on a very short leash. Perhaps we should suggest a French naval surrender exercise. They can spend the next two weeks practicing mooring the boats to the dock.

Haven't they heard of BabelFish?

So according to Hans Blix it is going to take several days to translate a 25 page document about the Iraqi VX program.

The thing is only 25 pages. It's not another 1200 pages of fiction, it's 25 pages. The UN supposedly has some of the best translators in the world. They are supposed to be able to translate with a very minimal time lag. Give them the 25 pages. Get it translated and over with.

It absoluetly should not take more then several hours to translate and digest the report. Unless of course you're trying to prevent a war by making up any excuse you can.

It's only 25 pages. Get it done already!

Chris the psychotic psychic

With as nice and quiet as it’s been the last few days, I’ve been trying to divine in my mind what is going on and what we should do in the immediate aftermath of the war in Iraq.

What’s going on? Don’t know for absolute sure, but there is an interesting pattern of events starting to unfold.

Diplomacy is almost at a standstill; the UN can’t decide what to have for lunch, much less what to do about Iraq. The only new news on the diplomatic front is the coming “summit” in the Azores. This “one last attempt” at diplomacy seems to me to be weak and contrived – and destined to failure. I get the sense that we don’t want to negotiate with the French and they seem to be indicating that the feeling is mutual. The UN funeral procession has started on its final trip to history’s graveyard to join its ancestor, the utterly ineffective League of Nations.

Militarily, it seems like everything is coming to a head, real quick all the sudden. We’ve got the troops in place. The holes have been cut in the border fence between Kuwait and Iraq. The Iraqis are moving troops to the border, including gas capable artillery units. Scuds are active in western Iraq. We’re pulling the defensive screens off two carriers in the Med to send the Tomahawk capable ship through the Suez to the Red Sea, where they can fire off the missiles without their over flying Turkey. Five boats – 2 destroyers and 3 attack subs – passed through the canal today with the rest expected to pass tomorrow. And parts of the Iraqi Army have already attempted to surrender.

Anti-American sentiment is running extremely high in Europe, but the Europeans won’t admit it. Anti-French feelings are running very high in the US. We keep warning the French that there will be a backlash against their idiocy. The French continue to be obstinate, arguing that there won’t be a problem, because there is no reason to have a problem, because the French people love the American people, so there is no problem. We talk of boycotts; they just talk – mainly about anything other than reality.

There are rumors flying about of Saddam trying to preemptively start a war. Tony Blair made an impassioned speech to Parliament and is now saying that the British will fight beside us, UN resolution or not. Chirac and de Villepan keep saying there can be no war because the French have not approved of it. The Russians keep playing good cop/bad cop with the Foreign Minister Ivanov the bad cop and President Putin playing the good cop. Hans Blix tells MTV, those paragons of investigative journalism, that he is more worried about global warming than he is about war. Iraq is complaining about everyone “caving” to US pressure as their diplomats get expelled from one nation after another.

So where does this all leave us right now?

Diplomacy has failed. The French have become incoherent and the Russians are now stonewalling to try to extract the maximum financial gain from this as they can. The UN will soon be absolutely irrelevant. The city of New York should really consider evicting the UN and turning the building into condos and theaters. If the French are really so keen on the UN, let them host it, let them provide a quarter of the funding, and let them provide most all the military might. It’ll be impressive the first time the “new” UN goes into surrender war under the new all-white UN flag (designed by a famous Parisian designer, of course).

Saddam is going to screw up, big. I believe that he will try to launch a pre-emptive war. But what he doesn’t fathom is that if he drops one WMD round on, say, one Marine platoon, we will counter by taking out, say, an entire division. And we’ll do it conventionally. But there will be a disproportionate response. He gets us a little, we nail him a lot.

Should Saddam play it smart and just sit back, we will probably start the fight by Sunday anyways. Everything is in place, we already have big bombers overhead (see today’s B-1 attack) and we currently have two slightly naked carriers in the Med. We have to get those screen ships back to the carriers in short order. The air wing can protect the big ships, but with the missile boats around them it is so much easier and it allows the carriers to be almost exclusively offensive in nature. The air power is there, the sea power is there and the land force is in place and ready to go. I suspect that the summit on Sunday is to finalize the details of the invasion.

If we start on Sunday, I expect that we’ll have everything, except maybe Baghdad itself, by Friday. The actual “fight” itself probably won’t be much of a fight.

So then, what do we do afterwards? Who participates and what are our goals?

First, anyone who participates gets a say. That’s only right. Your say may not be very big, but you’ll get it nonetheless. If you don’t participate, you don’t get a say. That means no say for the French, no say for the Germans, no say for the UN. Right now, the Turks would not get a voice either. The only non-participant that I would listen to are the Russians – and that’s only because they’ve been honest since the start of this and they told us that their commercial interests were strong. So as long as they don’t actively battle us (like the French have) they should get a small bit of consideration.

I believe that many of the current commercial deals in place in Iraq, should stay in effect. Ones that are blatantly one sided, like the Total ELF Fina deal, should be scrapped. But if there is a viable contract (realistic consideration for both sides) the deals should stay. The new government should also keep at least a sizable chunk of their foreign debt to Russia on the books. Those debts appear, on the surface at least, to be legit. There needs to be some continuity between the old regime and the new regime. Commercial contracts staying in force is a great way to help that continuity.

Our overall goals should be simple. We want to help the Iraqi people to form a new, functional and responsive government. We want them to feel like their voices were the most important in the process. So long as the new regime respects human rights and is responsive to its citizens needs, it doesn’t matter what form it takes on (but those two conditions limit the number of forms it can take). Our only other goal should be to help in rebuilding the infrastructure – both physical and educational. Obviously after a war, the physical plant of the nation will need repair and upgrading. But we also need to put in place an educational system that will help the Iraqi people to experience their own Renaissance – which will help to make the nation more stable and less of a threat to us.

So there’s my assessment of what to expect. Maybe I’ll be right, maybe I’ll be wrong. But the tealeaves are telling an interesting, yet incomplete story right now. Time will tell if there really was a pattern developing in the disconnected blurbs above.

Boycott France? Maybe

I was just listening to Bill O’Reilly talking about a poll on his website which is showing over 90% of Americans (that read his site) are supporting the idea of a boycott against France. O’Reilly admits that the boycott would be designed to punish the French for selling us out and would not be an attempt to get them to change their position in the UN Security Council. Among the various products he recommends boycotting are bottled water, alcoholic beverages, cheeses, and aircraft. He does not, however, support boycotting French owned hotels. The idea behind his boycott is great, but I don’t think it will work.

O’Reilly makes some good suggestions for products to use instead of French products. He recommends Polish water in place of Evian (but why not Zephyrhills – from Florida?). He suggests Californian or Australian wines. He recommends any cheese but French cheese. These are all simple choices. There isn’t anything complex about this kind of a boycott. If he were to stop here, I’d say this boycott had a chance to work.

But he takes it a step further. Among the truly multinational products that he proposes to boycott he includes the Airbus product line.

There are only two major aircraft manufacturers in the world: Boeing and Airbus. Boeing is based out of Washington state; Airbus is a multinational consortium primarily funded by companies in four nations: France, Germany, Italy, and the UK (yep, the same one that has given us Tony Blair). The Italian portion of Airbus is not anywhere near the same in scope as the other three nations’ commitments. British Aerospace now owns the UK portion and is the only truly privately held chunk of Airbus. The French and German pieces, though, are run as arms of the state aerospace industry (Airbus frequently enjoys protection as a sovereign entity of the French government, although they are getting away from that somewhat). They are in fact and in essence, pure socialism.

All of this provides ample backing for a boycott of Airbus. It is essentially part of the French government (German, too). It’s socialist underpinnings run completely contrary to our free market principles. And Jacques “Iraq” Chirac has pushed just a little too hard. So why won’t a boycott of Airbus work?

Simple. The American people don’t care enough to try to decipher an airline’s timetable to discover what kind of airplane they’re going to be flying on. And even if they could get through to secret code structure, most of the time, they wouldn’t be willing to fly out of their way or to possibly fly another airline to avoid an Airbus. Education and convenience will be the downfall of this boycott.

There is an ironic component to this and a shameful component also.

If we look at the Big Six airlines: United, American, Delta, Continental, Northwest, and USAir, three fly mixed Boeing/Airbus fleets (United, American and USAir), the other three fly just Boeing fleets (McDonnell Douglas is part of Boeing now). Two of the three mixed fleet operators are in bankruptcy, with American looking like it will join them very soon. It’s kind of ironic that we’re looking to punish Airbus, when the Airbus products punish the airlines balance sheets. A boycott of Airbus aircraft by Americans could very well lead to the Chapter 7 liquidations of both United and USAir, the two largest Airbus operators in the US.

A boycott of Airbus airplanes would lead to the loss of tens of thousands of airline jobs. And the shame of this situation is that a liquidation by USAir or United would put a serious hurt on Airbus. But they would not be able to retaliate in kind. Government interference in Lufthansa and Air France has led to those two airlines having already switched most of their fleets over to Airbus. How would they retaliate in kind? Cancel non-existent orders for Boeing aircraft?

I do find it odd though that O’Reilly supports boycotting Airbus, but not French owned hotels that are operating here because the hotels employ a large number of Americans. He is very concerned about hotel workers losing their jobs, but doesn’t seem to have thought through the ramifications of a successful Airbus boycott.

The French are weasels. I full agree that a boycott of French consumer products by ordinary Americans will deliver a wake-up call to Jacques “Iraq.” No more brie for me (as if I ever ate it anyway). The cognac I bought in Paris two years ago will get to age some more. And I couldn’t afford Evian even with my previous job! Let’s keep the boycott simple. Let’s make it work – without putting Americans out of work.

The Media Debates Rain Before A Hurricane

I have to admit something. I don't get a newspaper delivered to my house. From the time I get home in the evening until I go to bed, I have on either Fox News or CNN, but I never really pay all too much attention to them. Most of the news I get comes from various Internet sources, where I can immediately go and check out anything I disagree with. But every once in a while, it's good to go back and read the local paper, in this case the Orlando Sentinel.

One of the nice things about the Sentinel is that is has some very good op-ed writers. They always have a way of making you think. One of the writers I like best is Kathleen Parker. Today she had an interesting essay on the PR side of the current fight. As she usually does, she got me to thinking, but not about PR.

Towards the end of her column she starts to discuss the various reasons why she believes that Saddam is unreasonable. Her reasons are all the usual and reliable suspects. There really isn't anything new there, but I feel like she is missing one big point.

America expects to fight a clean, moral, above-the-belt fight. And we expect our opponent to so the same. But Saddam isn't a reasonable man. He is a madman. And George W. is all but Andrew Jackson reincarnate. The Jacksonian side of America is about to come out again (curious as to what this statement is about? Go here.)

To use a metaphor, think of Saddam as looking to the south and seeing the storm clouds on the horizon. He knows a storm is coming and he knows it will be bad.

But right now, it's only a thunderstorm.

As soon as Saddam breaks the rules of civil warfare (there's an oxymoron), that thunderstorm will become an American Hurricane, packing more power and violence than any other force known to man. To put it in redneck terms, a Jacksonian Dubya would be openin' up a big ol' can of whoop-ass of Saddam.

As I read essays like Parker's or various news articles they all seem to talk about an American invasion in clinical terms, "shock & awe," "overwhelming," or "relentless." They never seem to bring home the magnitude of the offensive being planned. They never talk about the tremendous violence to be unleashed. They make it sound like it's just an exercise. It's not. People will die; it's unfortunate, but they will.

The media seems to be overlooking the importance of Bush's Jacksonian tendencies. We seem to be talking about the coming fight in terms of how it relates to what Clinton did. Clinton was not a Jacksonian President. What is about to come is going to be beyond the scope of comprehension for a Clintonite. If the media wants to have a debate about the war, they need to spend more time learning about the Presidents and less time trying to "learn" them.

No News = News

I generally prefer to write about current events. Why? I don’t know. Maybe it’s because most people know something about the subject matter (as opposed to airline economics or the most efficient setup of a total transportation network). Maybe it’s just because I enjoy being able to follow a story to its conclusion. But for whatever reason, I like current events.

My regular readers (you are out there, I hope) will notice that my posting has been light lately. One of caveats of writing about current events is that I don’t like news articles that simply repeat what has already been said. To put it facetiously, I really don’t care if de Villepan of France has switched from American cheese to Swiss cheese in a protest against American hegemony. I already know that he has a severe dislike for America. Tell me something I don’t know.

Real news has been extremely sparse this week. Most every news site I visit is just simply repeating old news, maybe with a new little twist (“Today, America and Britain agreed that the proper pronunciation of the word been in the new UN resolution will be ‘ben’ instead of ‘bean.’ This is great progress on the oral argument front. Back to you, John”). I don’t want to be a real journalist who writes about the same thing over and over and over. So I don’t.

But I do have a theory about the volume of real news that is floating around. The more real news there is, the less is actually happening. The more the media acts like Pete the Repeat Parrot, the more is actually going on. I think this is because the media today knows that something is happening; they know it’s important. They just don’t know what it is. So they talk about the same two topics they think are important. In contrast, when there is a nice variety of stories floating around, it’s because the media doesn’t know where to even try to look for a story. So they create stories out the events of everyday life.

Real news is very quiet right now. We keep hearing the same things over and over again, on CNN, on Fox, on Drudge. It’s all the same news, all basically the same commentary. But those few little juicy tidbits that flow out (Fox (and now ABC)claiming Saddam is moving troops south and is readying his Scuds, the new “insanity and explosives summer camps” in Iraq) are enough to keep reminding me that something is happening, and probably very soon.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see Baghdad fall before April 1. We’re in the calm before the storm. I’m sure that I’ll have a lot to write about - soon.

Why We Are Fighting

I’ve spent quite a bit of time today trying to decide what this war is really all about. Sure, on the surface it is about disarmament and deterrence of terrorism, but I can just sense that there is something deeper involved here. As I see it, we really have a war that revolves around two topics: ideas and ideals.

Iraq is all but a foregone conclusion. We are going to go in and we are going to win militarily. And we will do so because we believe that it is the right thing to do. That is also why we will engage in the reconstruction and education of the liberated nation. But this war really isn’t about Iraq. It really isn’t against Iraq.

The upcoming war is going to be aimed more at France and Germany. Since the end of WWII and particularly since the end of the Cold War, the US and its Continental allies have drifted apart ideologically. France and Germany, France in particular, have failed to heed the admonitions of George Santayana; they have failed to learn the lessons that WWII taught us.

At Munich, Neville Chamberlain came away from his meeting with Hitler declaring “peace in our time.” The events of the following seven years proved that appeasing Hitler by caving to his demands had not brought peace. It had brought more demands; unreasonable demands. Britain and France abandoned their ally, Poland; the French abandoned their Jewish population. The British found themselves with their backs to the wall. The French found themselves under the boot.

Nearly fifty years ago, the Americans came to France to fight for an idea. It is the same idea we are fighting for today – liberty. We didn’t go to France to protect business contracts or strategic resources. We didn’t go because we liked the landscape or even because we had some great love for the French people. We buried thousands of our Greatest Generation in the Normandy soil for an idea.

But liberty is just an idea, a concept, a word. By itself, it is nothing. It was our ideals that we brought with us to France that gave our idea meaning. It was our ideal of freedom. It was our ideal of informed dissent. It was our ideal that of equality. None of these ideals existed under the Nazi regime; liberty was just a lofty word. We had to return these basic human ideals to an oppressed people. And we did.

We didn’t stop with bringing our ideas and ideals to France. After we liberated France, we went to Germany. And we spent several years bringing these concepts to the Germans. And the Germans, like the French, took to them. Because they are basic human urges. Everyone, no matter how oppressive the tyrant that rules them, longs to feel liberty. Everyone longs to live his or her life – not to merely exist.

To the credit of the British, they learned their lessons very quickly. After their abandonment of Poland, they actively took part in promoting the idea of liberty. The fall of Britain was not prevented by military might (Battle of Britain notwithstanding), it was prevented by that singular idea – liberty. The British people knew liberty. They felt in their hearts that the idea was worth fighting and dying for. They were committed to liberty; the Nazis were committed to oppression. The idea was the strength needed by the British to fight off a militarily superior foe.

Today we are fighting for the same idea and for those same ideals. Liberty has been the dominant common denominator in every fight the US has ever been involved in. It was the foundation of the Revolution. It was the glue that held the Union together during the Civil War. It was our purpose for joining WWI and WWII. It was why we fought in Korea; it was why we fought in Vietnam. It was why we fought the first Gulf War. And it is why we will fight again.

The twentieth century was one of the most remarkable stretches of history for any nation. The United States fought in four major wars and numerous smaller skirmishes to protect the idea of liberty. But we were always guaranteeing liberty for other people. At no point was our liberty truly threatened with extinction. There were circumstances that could have progressed to that point, but we never actually made it there. Instead, we fought and died in far off lands because someone else’s liberty was threatened with extinction. No other nation-state in history has ever sent so many men off to die so someone else could live free.

When we look at the new fight in Iraq, we see that the United States and Britain (and also the coalition of the willing) are fighting for the same reasons they did during the twentieth century. We are fighting for liberty.

But what are the French and Germans fighting for? They don’t have any ideas or ideals that they’re defending. They are fighting for commercial contracts and hubris. In their battle money is worth more than liberty; pride worth more than human lives. They are willing to support totalitarianism so long as the money is good.

The Continental Europeans (by which I mean primarily France and Germany) have forgotten the blessings we bestowed upon them. They have ignored the lessons of the thousands of silent teachers buried throughout Europe. We did not liberate them because they were nice people. We did not liberate them for commercial gain. We liberated them because it was the right thing to do.

We are seeing the present confluence of radical Islam and Continental Europe because they are both based on the fleeting concept of pride. Radical Islam exists because some in the Islamic world feel as though they have failed. These folks have no ideas or ideals, they only know hatred and failure. They lash out against the more successful because they know nothing else. They lash out and feel better for a while, and then they go back to the misery because they have no reason – no ideas – for which to live. But that short burst of defiant pride is enough to keep them going for a while. France and Germany are currently lashing out in the UN because they know they have lost the war of ideas. Actually they know they have lost; they do not know that the fight was over ideas. But pride prevents them from looking within for the answers as to why they lost. They know that we have triumphed, so they lash back with proud obstructionism.

They will lose this fight also. They will lose because the idea of liberty is worth more than all the oil contracts in the world. They will lose because freedom is a more powerful ideal than pride. The will lose because equality is more powerful than totalitarianism. They will lose because they fight for the wallet; we fight for the hearts and minds. We will win because we are fighting for the most powerful thing in the history of the world.

We are fighting for an idea.

OPEC: Oil supply & demand in balance

You got to love our friends over at OPEC. Here oil is trading at $37+ per barrel, gas is running ~$1.80/gallon and they say that there is no shortage of oil. They'll pump more to cover a shortage in case of a war. But right now "There is no shortage of supply, the market is in balance and there is plenty of oil."

These guys are amazing. $37 and the market is in balance. Did these guys ever take a basic economics course?

This is why we need to get rid of our dependence on the oil ticks.

The British To Sit Out Round One?

It would be a shame if we had to go into battle without our British allies. It's starting to look like might have to, though. Can we defeat the Iraqi Army without the Brits? Absolutely. Would having the Brits on board make it easier? Definitely.

We need to make every effort possible to protect Tony Blair. He has stood by us when the chips were down and it really counted. If going it alone is what it takes to protect Blair, then off we go.

Regardless of whether or not Her Majesty's Army joins in the battle, we need to make sure that the British have a say in the new Iraq. They will help to bring a balance and viewpoint that we can't have by ourselves. The fact that they do not participate, doesn't alter the fact that they're our staunch and true ally. Tony Blair has earned the right to protect himself. It's disappointing that it might have to come to this, but if that's the way it is- that's the way it is.

Dumb & Dumber

This is lame. I'm just not sure which part is more lame. The AP is reporting that French Fries no longer exist in the halls of Congress. They are now called Freedom Fries. And at breakfast, our legislators will be eating Freedom Toast. Not exactly a move that will strike fear into the hearts of our enemies, but Congress is entitled (some would say required) to make low substance announcements.

What really strikes me as truly lame is that the French embassy was questioned about this (never mind anything like the Iraq situation) and they actually denied any connection to French fries - claiming they actually came from Belgium! Is Belgium the scapegoat for anything offensive that comes out of Europe?

We really need to start focusing the world's leadership on something more than deep-fried potatoes.

Airlines to lose more money than the government

Articles like this bother me. The airline industry is putting out dire warnings about the consequences of a new war in Iraq. They're claiming that a war, coupled with a terrorist attack like 9/11 could lead to $13 billion in losses and 100,000 layoffs.

All that may be true, but what happens if we have a war in Iraq, a terrorist attack like 9/11 and a war in Korea? Or if instead of a new Korean war, a 747 crashes on approach in bad weather? Or what if we only have a war in Iraq and it's over in a week? Then what?

Reports like this are fear mongering, pure and simple. The liquidation of Eastern Airlines and Pan American were not because of the first Gulf war. They were the results of decades of incredibly inept management. Get the book Hard Landing for a more in depth look at why Eastern and Pan Am failed. There is no positive evidence that any of their assumptions will happen, war included. Right now it is all hypotheticals. This article is designed to build public support for more government money.

I'm also bothered by the next to last paragraph in the story. In that paragraph the airlines contribute $4.1 billion of their $10 billion loss to costs for additional security. But part of that $4.1 billion was actually the $2.50 government imposed security surcharge! The airlines didn't lose that money; it was never theirs to begin with!

Fear mongering articles like this are a short-term band aid. They will not fix the mistakes of years of mismanagement. They will not help to make the airlines more efficient or to bring passenger back. And ultimately they will backfire as the public catches on to the deception.

Where's Santayana When You Need Him?

Do the Arab schools fail to teach their children anything about real history? Have they never heard the speech from the beginning of Patton? Did they not learn the lesson of the kamikaze?

Of all the asinine ideas that Saddam has come up with, this one takes the cake. Self-induced attrition is not the way to win a war. And what happens when you fail in your "dumb bomb" mission? Do you still get 72 white raisins?

These are the people that history warned us about.

Annan spouts the party line

Why do I keep hoping against hope that the UN will figure out how to act morally? You would think after all this time they might have started to get a clue. But Kofi Annan uses the WSJ to prove that the UN still doesn't get it.

He starts off well enough by acknowledging that the Security Council faces a watershed vote. But from there he degenerates into the usual anti-American positions that have been taken by our opponents in the Security Council. Instead of dealing with the real issue of Iraq's failure to voluntarily disarm, he instead lectures about the possible downsides of a war.

We are reluctant warriors. We are not rushing into war, we have deliberated about this, we have considered all the possible outcomes, and we have decided that this is the best course of action. We don't need to be lectured. We understand what we are doing.

We also, despite all the European insistence to the contrary, know that we do not need the political blessing of the UN. UN political support will not make this venture more or less successful over the long term. What is the great threat here? Is the UN going to refuse to recognize the new Iraqi government? Are they going to continue to recognize a dead man? It will make their negotiations with him much easier, but it won't change the fact that he's till dead and unable to make a decision.

We need to walk away. The UN exists only through our good graces. We gave it its power and relevance. They have abused that power and as a result we need to walk away. There is no reason to put up with this anti-American garbage anymore.

They'd lose to the Swiss Navy

Heh, heh. I like this. The Portuguese understand the dynamics of the modern world. They are willing to support us because they understand we are able to protect them in the event of an attack. But their comparison of the US and European military capabilities is priceless

"If we were attacked, is that what they would offer to defend us? How curious is this: in Bosnia, when we were called to send soldiers urgently to that region, the U.S. had C-17 and C-130 planes, and France leased ferry boats, which during the summer are employed in tourist services to Corsica.

"Is this how we are supposed to project our forces in Europe? Are they planning to defend us with ferry boats? I cannot envisage the European Commission protecting us from an attack in which highly developed weapons were employed," the foreign minister said.

The French had best beware of a battle with that maritime powerhouse they border - Switzerland. Their strategic lift capacity is, shall we say, lacking. And we already know that the French Army will surrender quicker than the Iraqis should there be a possibility of invasion.

How useful is the UN?

So true, so true (Thanks to American RealPolitk for the cartoon):

France & Germany Make A Bad Choice?

I sincerely hope that Michael Ledeen is wrong in his assessment of France and Germany. It appears that he is fitting the evidence to prove the crime, but it is convincing enough and conniving enough to be realistic.

The French and Germans will lose if this is their tactic of choice. They will have again cast their lot with evil (just like they did with Hitler & Co.) and as a result they will reap the evil they have sown. Radical Islam is morally bankrupt and it too will eventually implode under the weight of its own contradictions. If the French and Germans have chosen this course, the map of Western Europe will be redrawn in radical ways.

Is Torture Ever Acceptable?

Pat Buchanan is making an argument for the torture of Khalid Shaikh Muhammad as a moral necessity to save lives. I would love to see Muhammad start talking, but I believe we need to do it without resorting to torture.

Buchanan makes, what on the surface appears to be a fairly solid argument that torture is acceptable by Natural Law. I want to put aside US law for a moment and focus on this argument.

Buchanan asks if the deliberate infliction of pain is always immoral. He also answers it correctly- that it is not always immoral. But then he supports his argument with examples like twisting an arm to find a stolen bike and spanking your children. Believe me, if twisted Muhammad's arm was all it took or putting him over my knee for a butt whoopin', I'd be the first in line to mete out the punishment. The real question is one of degree. Arm twisting and spanking won't work in this case. It's going to take something more - like permanent disfigurement or massive physical pain like that associated with electroshock of naughty bits. The deliberate infliction of pain is not in and of itself immoral. It is the infliction of massive pain where the act becomes immoral.

He also throws out the gratuitous argument of Civil War doctors who performed amputations without anesthesia. Were these painful? I cannot even begin to imagine the pain. But they were to directly benefit the person suffering through the pain. It is a different situation not at all related to the question at hand.

Now we'll bring US law back into the equation. Buchanan asks why it is ok for a US soldier to kill Muhammad to save 50 hostages if we cannot torture him. Simple, if he is caught in the immediate act of threatening the lives of others, he can be killed. But if we only catch him conspiring to plan the murder of others, we no longer have the right to kill him, but instead we must give him due process.

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution provides that no one shall be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment. The Supreme Court and the court of public opinion have held that extreme torture, like required here, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. So far as I am aware, we have not put Muhammad on trial yet. Therefore he has not been appointed to a military tribunal and is still entitled to the protections of the Constitution. The fact that he is a foreign national does not automatically exempt him from due process protection. Until such time as he is tried and convicted, we have no right to punish him.

I have argued several times before that the US needs to hold itself to a higher standard simply because we are the US. This is another case where we need to act in a more moral manner than most other nations would. We should not resort to torture, even if the rest of world would understand and would turn a blind eye. We are the United States. We're above that. And that's not fuzzy liberal thinking - that's principle.

I'm Still Not Ready.......

OK, in my quest to find a diversity of viewpoints I followed a link off LGF and eventually ended up at clearguidance.com on a page that gives 7 reasons to read the Qur'an. But their seven reasons left me with a few questions that I'd like answered before I buy my Qur'an off Amazon.

Here we go:
Seven Reasons to read the Qur'an
(and my questions/comments)

I. Inimitable

It dares you to disprove it. How? It says that humans cannot write a book like this even if they pooled all their resources together and got help also from the spirits. The Quran said this fourteen hundred years ago and yet no one has been able to disprove it. Billions of books have been written -but not another one like the Quran.

Disprove it? Religious books were generally written to be handbooks on day-to-day life. There has been another book written to fill exactly that same function - the Jewish Torah. What makes this handbook so much better?

2. Incorruptible

It is the only religious sacred writing which has been in circulation for such a long time and yet remains as pure as it was in the beginning. The Quran was kept intact. Nothing was added to it: nothing was changed in it; and nothing was taken away from it ever since it was completely revealed 1400 years ago.

The Torah hasn't been updated for many, many years now. Nothing has been added, nothing taken away. The only thing that has changed is the translation as we discover older versions.

3. Unsurpassable

The Quran is God's final revelation to humankind. God revealed the Torah to Moses, the Psalms to David, the Gospel to Jesus, and finally the Quran to Muhammad. Peace be upon Moses, David, Jesus and Muhammad. No other book will come from God to surpass his final revelation.

I'm guessing that we Christians were saying the same thing for 600 years. What makes you so sure that this really is the final revelation? Just because the book says so, doesn't make it so.

4. Indisputable

The Qur'an withstands the test of time and scrutiny. No one can dispute the truth of this book. It speaks about past history and turns out right, It speaks about the future in prophecies and it turns out right, It mentions details of physical phenomena which were not known to people at the time; yet later scientific discoveries confirm that the Quran was right all along. Every other book needs to be revised to accord with modern knowledge. The Quran alone is never contradicted by a modern discovery.

They say the same thing about Nostradamus. Vagueness is not the same as correctness. I need some specifics here. Muhammad was a pretty bright guy, I'm sure that he did make observations that were advanced for the time. But again, I'd like specifics.

5. Your Roadmap for Life and Afterlife

The Quran is the best guidebook on how to structure your life. No other book presents such a comprehensive system involving all aspects of human life and endeavour. The Quran also points out the way to secure everlasting happiness in the afterlife. It is your roadmap showing how to get to Paradise.

Again, all religious texts are designed to be handbooks to living life. Are you implying that the Christian and Jewish versions are wrong? Am I going to Hell for taking the backroads of Christianity instead of the Superhighway of Islam?

6. God's Gift of Guidance

God has not left you alone. You were made for a reason. God tells you why he made you, what he demands from you, and what he has in store for you. If you operate a machine contrary to it's manufacture specification you will ruin that machine. What about you? Do you have an owner's manual for you? The Quran is from your maker. It is a gift for you to make sure you function for success lest you fail to function. It is a healing mercy from God. It satisfies the soul, and cleans the heart. It removes doubts and brings peace.

So again, the Christian and Jewish Bibles are not adequate owner's manuals? Are you also saying that I will never find satisfaction or peace in either of those two books?

7. Your Calling Card to Communicate with your God

Humans are social creatures. We love to communicate with other intelligent life. The Qur'an tells us how to communicate with the source of all intelligence and the source of all life - the One God. The Qur'an tells us who God is, by what name we should address God, and the way in which to communicate with God.

I've always had problems with calling cards. The connection fees rip me off ;-) But seriously, are you telling me that if I pray to God and not Allah, that he won't listen? I would think that if God is a forgiving god then he wouldn't much care what he was called.

Are these not seven sufficient reasons for reading the Qur'an?

Not yet. Good attempt, but there are still many more questions out there.

And while you're at it, could you explain to me why I should be required to follow laws that were written 1400 years ago - and never updated?

History and the American Empire

Over the last few days I’ve been reading a fair number of articles and essays which seem to imply that the United States in bent on creating an empire. I don’t necessarily think that’s true, if anything I think we’re going to slightly disengage from the world. Plus, America just isn’t cut out to create an empire.

Empires nearly allows have three factors in common: a dominant military, a monarchial or dictatorial form of government, and a lack of access to needed resources. There are other factors which also play a part in empire building, but these are the big three as I see it.

Empire building nations always have a dominant military. Usually they have found some technological advantage that creates a power gap between the empire and its rivals. The Romans had a flexibility advantage over the Greeks. The British had a naval advantage over the other European nations. The US has an electronic advantage over everyone else. With military force being absolutely critical, it would seem as though the critics of the US could be on the right track – we have a major military advantage over everyone else.

But our form of government is wrong for creating the American empire. The democratic Athenians never formed an empire. But the dictatorial Romans did. The monarchies of England, France and Spain all created empires. But the representative governments in those countries have let the empire disband. Why can’t a representative government create an empire when a dictator can? It’s actually pretty simple. In a democracy (or republic) the power of each voter is diluted as the empire expands (one person, one vote). In a dictatorship, the leaders power increases as more people of subjugated to achieving his goals. The President of the United States does not gain any additional power for leading more people; neither does Congress. Empire building would dilute the importance of each state and each person. Which is why our government is all wrong for creating the American Empire.

We also are one of the most resource-blessed countries on earth. Other than oil, we are basically able to be self-supportive. The Europeans needed hard currency. Japan needed more basic building resources. We don’t need to take over the oil supplies; free market economics ensure that there will always be someone willing to sell us what we need. In addition, we could make a few policy changes and probably become completely independent of the oil ticks in the Middle East. We have every resource – tangible and intangible – that we need to survive and thrive. Economic specialization is the only reason we need to trade with others – it allows everyone to benefit. But we could go it alone and survive quite well, thank you.

So, of the big three reasons for empire building, we fail on two of them and the third is merely a result of our industriousness. The US has no designs on building an empire; we’re not even prepared to undertake such a course. But what if we decided to make empire building work as a democracy?

We already know what kind of conqueror the US is. We conquered Germany and Japan in WWII. Never in the history of civilization has there been as benevolent a conqueror as the United States. We most often get compared to the Caesars of Rome. The Romans hit the maximum breadth of their empire in the mid-2nd century. It wasn’t until the end of the 3rd century that they finally left a conquest. And then it was only because they could no longer provide security to the region. In contrast, we turned Japan and Germany back over to their citizens in less than a decade – after we paid to help rebuild both nations.

Empires have always been of great benefit to the mother country because of the tribute that gets remitted back to the capital. Tribute, pillaging and violent oppression have always been hallmarks of a military conquest. Rome used to send slaves, loot and leaders back to Rome to be paraded through the streets of the city. When we conquered Germany and Japan we reversed the flow of money. We essentially paid tribute to those nations for the right to occupy and rebuild before giving the nations back. That is simply unheard of in world history.

We don’t butcher people. We don’t humiliate or abuse people. We don’t “conquer” people in the traditional sense. We truly do liberate people. There has never been another nation in history that has always liberated people simply because it was the right thing to do. Yet that is all that we ever do (excepting the Spanish-American War at the end of the nineteenth century). And that is why the fears of the coming American Empire are unfounded.

Of course, if I were living in a third world nation and I had to choose whether I was going to be part of the American Empire or part of the French Empire, there is no doubt which I would choose. I much prefer American cheese on my hamburgers.

Why Inspections Won't Work

The London Times is reporting that the US & Britain will push Blix for an explanation of the drone he failed to mention on Friday.

The drone is illegal and undeclared. In every way, shape, and form it is a violation of 1441. No ifs, ands, or buts. Even the French wouldn't be able to protest this one (well, they probably would anyway - reality means nothing to them). It is the "smoking gun" that could have the biggest impact on the Security Council swing voters.

So why wouldn't Blix and the boys disclose this as they were required to? Simple. Job security. If the inspections end, so does their job. So by hiding results and giving deceptive reports, they put off the start of war and give themselves more time to collect their paychecks.

The inspection system is fatally flawed in that it has no incentive for the inspectors to actually find anything. The longer they inspect, the more they earn. It's like an unskilled hourly worker - they will take as long as humanly possible to complete a task because doing so increases their compensation.

But then the inspectors weren't supposed to be playing hide-and-seek with Saddam. He was supposed to disclose and destroy; they were supposed to verify. Saddam has had 12 years to live up to his end of the agreement and he has failed to do so.

Fire Blix. This proves he is unethical and untrustworthy - just like the man he is "inspecting." Inspections cannot work in their current form. Saddam won't voluntarily disarm - let's go ahead and "help" him - now.

Teddy Roosevelt Would Be Proud

Disengagement and a return to gunboat diplomacy. This is what Dale Amon is seeing as he divines the tealeaves of Bush's foreign policy over at Samizdata.net. I don't think that America will revert back to "Fortress America," but a move in that direction cannot be that bad a move.

For nearly 50 years now, we've had a massive presence overseas. We have spent billions upon billions of dollars protecting liberty and freedom (while the people we were protecting bought a bankrupt socialist government and anti-war protest signs). Given the state of politics in the world today, it is time to rethink those policies. The Europeans are big kids now, it's time to cut the cords and let them start suffering the wrath of opportunity costs.

Now I don't believe that we need to completely withdraw militarily from the world. There are many nations that would love to get the economic and security boost offered by hosting a US military base. These benefits are not insignificant and we need to attempt to make sure that they are focused on our true friends. I'm pretty sure that the Czechs or Bulgarians would love to have an armored division based in their nation. They would certainly appreciate it more than the Germans. We shouldn't completely withdraw, but we should take a harder look at who our hosts are.

The US has the ability to project force around the world on a scale unseen in world history. We should move back towards being more of a maritime (and now aeronautical) power and less of a land based power.) Like the British before us, we own the Seven Seas. And unlike anyone in history we own the skies. We just don't have the need for overseas-based troops like we did during the Cold War when the Soviets could compete on the oceans.

I think Dale has come pretty close on his reading of Bush policy. We do need to disengage from a number of the places we're in. But rather than a complete reversion to Fortress America, I think we will remain selectively engaged with a few willing partners (the British, the Australians, the Japanese and a few others). Unwilling partners like Germany will get their wish. We will leave and take all those dollars with us. We will go back to being the maritime power in the world.

Of course, with any crises nowadays, the first question asked - "Where are the carriers?" Maybe we're just going to finally admit that we're pretty damn good at gunboat diplomacy.

It's The WWII Axis Vs. The Allies Again

The blog bitter sanity has an interesting take on the different viewpoints of the Americans and the Europeans when it comes to how we view the UN. His argument that we in the US are taking a Jeffersonian approach is an interesting one, and one that I think has some validity to it. However, I do not think that a Jeffersonian approach vs. a fear of nationalism really describes the difference in viewpoints.

The fear of nationalism argument fails when applied to Britain, Australia, Spain, the Vilnius 10 and several other nations. The French and Germans do have an absolute fear of nationalism unchecked. The Germans because they have a psychological complex left over from the hell of Nazism. The French because they are afraid of having to be rescued by foreigners for a third time. Other nations, notably Belgium, that have strong French or German heritages tend to feel that same fear of nationalism.

But when you look at those other countries I mentioned, you will find that there is no fear of nationalism; there is no fear of an activist United States. Why?

The difference, as theorized by the author of the referenced essay, does in fact come from the respective histories of each nation. But the event with the most influence on the collective thinking of each nation is World War II.

When we look at the nations opposed to us in the UN right now, we see primarily the nations that were conquered by National Socialism. The Nazis unchecked aggressions and ambitions left deep scars across the Continental psyche. So deep that the affected nations now feel that they cannot protect themselves from themselves which necessitates a supernational body like the UN.

The British, Australians and the nations that make up the Vilnius 10 were part of the coalition that came together to defeat the Nazis. Had we listened to world opinion back then, the French would be speaking German and wearing lederhosen. All of Continental Europe would have been opposed to the Allied effort. But these nations knew that they needed to stand up for their national interests. So nationalism rose in those nations to meet the challenge posed by the nationalism of Germany. Nationalism in Britain and the former Soviet Union was a key to keeping up morale during the darkest days of the European war.

The Spanish are the oddballs here. They really didn't participate in WWII, but in the years following the war, they never really had problems with nationalism or nationalists and therefore they have no fear of nationalism. Which really makes them about the only unbiased party to the current discussion in the UN.

The UN has been fatally flawed with this difference in viewpoints since it was founded. But, instead of the split being along North American vs. European lines it is closer to being along the lines of the Axis (and their colonies - past and present) vs. the Allies (and their colonies - past and present). But regardless of the split, the fundamental flaw is still there and is just now surfacing as a serious point of contention.

Thomas Jefferson was an amazing man who shaped man of the principles on which this nation was founded. Many of our most basic beliefs as a nation can be traced back to him. In this case, harkening back to Jefferson isn't a good explanation for what has happened, but is an excellent way to explain what is going to happen. The UN has served a purpose up until now. But it has lost that purpose. It is time for the UN to be altered or abolished. Jefferson would expect no less.

Britain vs. the Supernationalists

A few days back I posted an essay about the need for the US to maintain its sovereignty against all attempts by the UN to undermine it. I am very strongly of the opinion that a supernational body like the UN is not good for America. It is merely being used as a tool of the morally bankrupt in their quest to take over the US. They use the UN because they have been firmly and repeatedly trounced in US elections.

Now, David Carr over at Samizdata, has an essay that is discussing the EU attempts to subjugate Britain. He also points out that Tony Blair is leading the charge (I knew there had been a reason I didn't care for him before).

The British have a long and proud history as a nation. They have been, for many years now, a stalwart defender of freedom and liberty around the world. They defend these beliefs so well because they are core principles of the British. The EU Constitution runs 180 degrees counter to those noble ideals. Should the British join this travesty, it will not only mean the end of the nation, but in a generation or two, it will mean the end of a people.

The special bond between the British and the Americans is not like that of a mother and child. It is a bond of true friendship forged through the trials and tribulations of two World Wars and held together by the glue of a common set of core beliefs. The EU fears the US/UK relationship because they don't understand it; the EU has no core set of beliefs, just a laundry list of politically correct drivel.

The socialist movement understands that they will never be able to fully co-opt Britain so long as it is independent. So they are attempting to conquer the nation by supernational politics. They probably also believe that if they conquer Britain, they will discover the secrets of the US/UK bond and that it will allow them to subjugate the US also. They are wrong.

As Britain gets closer to the EU, they will realize that the Franco-German axis in the Union will treat the British as an island based afterthought. The Brits will become the crazy relatives that the rest of the Union wants to hide and suppress. The British joining the EU will eventually destroy the Union, but it will take a large piece of the British identity with it. And that would be a shame.