This sounds like a football coach losing 42-0 in the fourth quarter yelling at the reporters on the sideline that he could still win if they just didn't keep putting the score up on the scoreboard. Although his game plan was awful and he got trounced on the field, he keeps yelling at everybody that they are quitters and monkeys. There isn't enough time to win anymore. The game has been lost for quite some time now, but we still have the raving coach saying we could win if we just throw a couple of more bombs.
No, it's more like a football coach winning 14-13, despite the opposing team fans helping the opposing team on the field and interfering on the field, and calling the victory a defeat while the referees let it all happen, and the sports reporters listening only to the opposing team's fans for sports journalism.
Keep your ass and your sports analogies away from football. You might get hurt... Headline fixed. AoS.
#2
As said times before, before 9-11, before Year 2000 elex, afore everything was GOVERNOR DUBYA'S FAULT, NOT PREZZIDENT/LDR-OF-AN-ENTIRE NATION-PLUS- WESTERN DEMOCRATIC WORLD CLINTON, WOT > BE-ALL, END-ALL, PRIMARY = ULTIMATE REAL BATTLEFIELD/WAR is for America + Washington DC, NOT THE ME.
All together, men, wid feeling, Song - "LANCELOT LINK, SECRET CHIMP ....................".
#3
Call me weird but I don't recall RUSSIA-CHINA warning the world that "War is not only possible but desired" agz any Muslim = Asian = African = Central-South nations, i.e. agz mad Mad MAD M-A-D MMMMMAAAAAAADDDDDDDDD, D *** you, Mad Camels and Mad Water Buffaloes/Carabaos and Mad Polar Bears-Whales etal., do you??? TWAS AGZ AMERICA, AND ONLY AMERICA.
[In the latest version of The Flag, a regular newsletter of the Flame Lily Association, they list the amazing achievements of Robert Mugabe.
Take a look at the excellent effects of Mugabenomics. I used to think Colonials were capitalist scumbags stripping Africa of everything. But Mugabe's form of economics has me convinced that he knows the way forward for black Africa. Well done Uncle Bob, I hope the whole of Africa follows in your footstep - REALLY I *DO*. Jan]
ZIMBABWE LEADS THE WORLD:-
o Highest inflation at around 2000%
o The IMF predicts 4000% inflation in 2007.
o The world's fastest shrinking economy.
o Lowests life expectancy - 34 for women, 37 for men (Source: UN)
o Highest number of orphans per capita (Source: UNICEF)
o Death Rate 3,500 per week - exceeds: Darfur, Iraq & Afghanistan. (Note they don't specify the source whether it is from AIDS/Starvation or a combination of the two).
o 80% unemployment
o 80% live below the poverty line
o Half the population starving (Note: They would be dead if the WFP weren't sending them food).
o 24% HIV+
o 90% HIV infection rate in the army.
#3
Granted inflation is a major concern, but I would have to believe that the government's confiscation and subsequent mismanagement of most income producing sectors of the economy was the root cause of inflation and the death of the economy.
#7
Why is Mugabe still in power? The answer is another question: who is going to assume all the liabilities by kicking a$$ and taking names?
What country or organization is going to take this humanitarian Chapter 11 country and pour billions of its own treasure into deposing the tyrants and rebuilding the country?
They have good farmland, anything else of value? I hear no rumblings from the UN-ZimBob is their kinda guy, one of the brothers. The former colonial masters are not volunteering, they're broke.
The people will not grab their pitchforks, macheties, and such stuff and take ZimBob down, so why should the rest of the world. If they did something, maybe others would help out.
It is a tragedy, especially for children. I do not see any way out of the abyss, except for for the populace to do something for themselves.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
12/11/2006 17:01 Comments ||
Top||
You should not read books, magazines or newspapers. You should sell your computer. The money you save could be used towards finding a minder.
I have no further advice.
You should offer no more advice. At that point the internet will be in equilibrium, or steady state. If you ever open a book, newspaper or magazine the world will shift towards disequilibrium. It will be your fault and yours alone. If ever in the future the world has wars, pestilence or plague it will be your fault for reading. And don't get on the internet again. For that we will probably lose a city.
And never confuse an opinion with fact again. Grow truffels and raise pigs. It is your want
#12
OregonGuy
I realize that you have/grow white truffles in Oregon but what's your problem with what Bright Pebbles said?
One speculates that his family exited the nation they used to live in when the world did nothing about an Islamic Cannibal. When one of the world's poorest countries couldn't stomach all the bodies flowing down its rivers and invaded... the Cannibal got to live out his life in luxury in a mansion in SaudiLand.
Of course that could be speculation on my side you fricking idiot.
That was Borat, not Jimmy Carter, who urged a crowd of lounge lizards in Tucson to join him in singing, "Throw the Jew Down the Well."
Carter has the same message, but (without the spoof) his narrative comes in a book that's just being released and is titled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.
Apparently the written word is not enough, so Carter has taken his grudge against Israel on tour. There he is with his brotherhood on National Public Radio, NPR, where Israel-bashing is always welcome; and here he is on C-Span; and he keeps on going and won't stop until he's got us all signing up for Holocaust Part 2.
Historians tell us that Pharaoh was the first to stir up the multitudes against the Jews, and we have it from Scripture that a new Pharaoh will arise to torment us from generation to generation. Carter knows his Bible and the part where Pharaoh says: "Come, let us deal craftily with this people."
So it shall be written, so it shall be done.
Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz has already ripped Carter's book by chapter and verse, so that's the place to go, Dershowitz, to find point-by-point where Carter turns history on its head, truth inside out. That's where we find exactly how Carter casts five and half million Israelis as villains against 300 million peace-loving Arabs.
Carter embraces Hamas, which openly calls for the destruction of Israel, and Carter reminds us that the Israelis never want peace, never make concessions. The fact that Israel gave up the Sinai and more recently gave up Gaza - well, all that makes no difference once you've got your mind made up and your heart is brimming with hostility, hatred and bigotry.
The credit for peace, by Carter's definition, goes to someone like a 67-year-old grandmother who blows herself up on a suicide mission and is then cheered by her family, friends and neighbors. Checkpoints to stop such behavior are, in Carter's terminology, "apartheid." Along the TV and speaking circuits, Carter seldom misses a chance to inventory his grievances against the Jewish State and to promote his Mein Kampf, his struggle to enlist the rest of us in joining his campaign to blow down the single house the Jews built to spare themselves further pogroms and genocides.
Carter's Protocols have already, and quickly, found enough readers to make it a best-seller. But Professor Kenneth W. Stein is not buying. Stein, an associate of Carter's for some 23 years, has now disassociated himself from Carter, citing the book's "factual errors" and "glaring omissions" and "invented segments." Stein adds that the book's "one-sided nature" is "meant to provoke."
For some time, word circulated about a certain ex-president who actually helped Yasser Arafat write his speeches in order to polish that mass murderer into a more presentable figure for the American people. Americans couldn't stomach Arafat's own kampf to "drive the Jews into the sea," so Jimmy Carter, it was said, changed that - only the words, not the intent - to, "We want peace."
Many of us found that hard to believe about an ex-president "who builds homes," and it is still difficult to prove, but now, with this book, we can believe anything. The unintended subliminal message from the pages of this updated Mein Kampf is that, with people like Jimmy Carter on the prowl, the need for a strong Israel, supported by righteous Jews and true Christians, is more urgent than ever.
That we Americans survived a man like this as president says much for the strength of our country. Yes, we survived and so will Israel.
If you can't read Carter's book, read his lips, as I did on C-Span.
The sterile, confused lame-duck session of the Republican-controlled 109th Congress ended with a quiet victory by reformers that staved off an estimated 10,000 earmarks. But it could not be called a farewell to pork. As the House approached adjournment Thursday, Democrats signaled they may countenance a return to free and easy spending ways when they assume the majority Jan. 4.
The hero of the lame-duck session was freshman Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina. He was instrumental in blocking a Senate-House conference on a military construction appropriations bill, which would then be used as the last train out of town to carry pork. But just as the reformers were cheering Thursday, a coalition of Republicans and Democrats defeated a procedure designed to inhibit Pentagon earmarks.
That leaves an unanswered question for the new Democratic majority. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the dynamic new member of the House Democratic leadership, has exhorted colleagues not to forget that their campaign against the Republican "climate of corruption" brought them into power. But does Emanuel's concept of reform go beyond new lobbyist control regulations and extend to the bipartisan addiction to pork-barrel spending?
Continued on Page 49
#1
Lesson: In the eyes of our enemies, Americas decency and honor, our rules of engagement even at war, is our weakness. When at war with terrorists, we can not afford to assume that anyone who appears to be a threat is anything less than a fatal threat. We must be willing to act before being fired upon again and again.
There is an important corollary to this lesson; viz, when the enemy responds to revised rules of engagement by sending in women and children for the slaughter we have to reject any responsibility for the consequences of that decision. The rules of war make it clear that over and over again it is our adversaries who make illegal and immoral sacrifice of their dependents. Yet to our press it is always we who are to blame. It is this last factor which is losing the Long War for us despite our strength. It is only when we demand moral clarity that we will succeed. Otherwise we risk losing civilization for want of rebutting what should be considered as nothing more than a lame debating point.
#2
"What must change to survive such an enemy? The fastest way to win any fight is to take the enemy out of the fight. The best way to do this is to take the fight out of the enemy, immediately, unconditionally and forever.
#3
A movie or two showing the jihadists using these tactics would go a long way. Show the war in Chechnya, portray the Chechnyans as heros if you must to get it made, but show how they hang wounded Russians in front of machine gun nests and hide behind their women and children to make sure the point gets through. Then have a western journalist portray them as heros and the Russians as savages for the times they respond with overkill.
#5
What is needed first is to take media out of fight. I suggest any info flow out of combat zone be controlled by combatant armies. refusal to comply results in instant death. For instance, all Iraq is a combat zone . If Al-Jiz refuses orders and proceeds in, bring batlle tanks up and proceed with concentrated fire until ibjective disappears. Then, take the fight to the enemy properly. Only statement would be "2300 enemy fighters and supporters were eliminated today in Ramadi".
#6
In traditional ME warfare, however imperfectly women and children were protected or to be kept as "war prizes/booty". SALADIN, etal Muslim conquerers punished or executed any Islamic warrior or sub-leader whom wilfully slaughtered women and children without cause-merit, or ditto whom wilfully placed them in harm's way. BY SALADIN'S, etal. standards, FOR MUSLIM MEN TO WILFULLY AND COMMONLY SEND IN WOMEN AND CHILDREN UNTO HARM OR DEATH BEFORE THEMSELVES IS AN INSULT TO GOD WORTHY OF BEHEADING OR OTHER IMMEDIATE EXECUTION. The only military or martial merit would be to save Warriors for a great/decisive battle, but even for the latter would be "pushing it", or viewed as "extremist", as such was never or rarely needed before. Iff any "great/decisive battle" ultimately proved victorious for the Muslim side, returning warriors would have no wives + children to continue their lineage, i.e. to continue Society, save those taken from the Infidels. TO WILFULLY PUT WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN HARMS WAY = DEATH OFTEN/ROUTINELY > PROOF THAT WOT = WAR TO THE DEATH, AND NOT MERELY PC = POLITIX " AS USUAL". WOULD BE AKIN TO JAPAN'S WW2's "GYOKUSAI?" COMBAT TACTIC, i.e. "BREAKING THE JEWEL", where every Japanese soldier = organz Unit(s), including Walking Wounded andor Combat Disabled, WOULD WILFULLY DESTROY THEMSELVES IN HUMAN WAVE, "BANZAI/KAMIKAZE" ATTACKS, TO THE LAST MAN, AND NO MORE RETREATS OR FALL-BACK. NO ONE COMES BACK ALIVE OR AT ALL, NOT EVEN THE GENERALS OR COLONELS OR REAR ECHELONS. The minutae handful whom manage to survive are those whom the Amer soldiers either captured alive [usu. wounded?], had failed to die or kill themselves, or the Amers chose not to kill off-hand in the heat of battle.
From VDare, a website I do like, but some here might find too rightwing. See original article for various linked materials
By Scott P. Richert
The arraignment Friday December 8 of a Muslim convert on charges of planning an act of "violent jihad" at the largest mall in Rockford, Illinois, has left many people asking how such a thing could happen in this "middle-sized town in the middle of the Middle West."
They shouldnt be so surprised.
For almost five years now, Ive been writing about the presence of Islam here in the Heartland, most recently in the December issue of Chronicles. Yet even today, people want to believe that the Islamic threat is entirely external. After all, President Bush and supporters of the war in Iraq have told us that "Were fighting them over there so that we dont have to fight them over here."
Apparently, someone forgot to explain that to Derrick Shareef.
Tonights main column, Jihad in Rockford, IL: What the MSM Wont Tell You, is about your typical Muslim-American terrorist who hates America, hates Christians and Jews both, hates white people, and wants to blow them up.
But theres one thing more: he hates Christmas.
Yes, according to the documents filed in Federal Court in Chicago, Derrick Shareefa sought to to disrupt Christmas, by putting bombs in the CherryVale Shopping Center in Rockford, although apparently he was multiculturally sensitive enough to refer to it as the holiday season.
This is an unusually violent case of War Against Christmas, beyond anything the ACLU is likely to do, but it still qualifies as part of the seasonal attack.
#2
CW-II---it's coming, and soon. If you're smart enough to be reading RB, you should be smart enough to have already started stockpiling food, water, medicines, weapons and ammunition.
Get to know your neighbors and start thinking about how you're going to defend your neighborhood, purify your water, and keep your family warm when it's cold. I think the right side is going to win but it's not going to be a walk in the park, particularly when lots of local governments simply disintegrate and the civil services vaporize with them.
Remember what happened in NOLA after Katrina: it can happen in your town too. The ghouls are just waiting for the lights to go out, and if you're not ready for it when it happens, you, and quite probably your family, won't survive.
Posted by: mac ||
12/11/2006 9:01 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The ghouls are just waiting for the lights to go out, and if you're not ready for it when it happens, you, and quite probably your family, won't survive.
I agree with everything you say. One addition though: There is a definite upside to the coming disaster. No need to spell it out. All I will say is that two men enter, one man leaves.
I know a Marine. He sits in a bar in North Carolina. He came there by way of Fallujah. The same close-cropped blonde fuzz glimmers on his head in the dim light as burned under the hot sun of Iraq. Hes the greatest storyteller I know, spinning tales about his overseas exploits, both combat and otherwiseonly with the express permission of the mixed company present, of course.
He speaks with a wit and color that would surprise John Kerry. He is not a quiet man. But I wonder what he would say this week. I wonder what he would say to the Iraq Study Groups proposed change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly.
I imagine hed just shake his head at me. He knows what the new primary mission is, as does anyone whos even skimmed the report, and its not the type of mission Marines are accustomed to. The mission is to lose. Lose slowly, lose responsibly, lose diplomatically, but lose without a doubt. My lively Marine friend would likely be disgusted into silence.
Continued on Page 49
#1
Eighty percent of Baghdad is mixed neighborhoods. If the US took the conflict to that level, US troops would no longer be only an occasional target.
What do we do?
1. Hand the keys to Iraq, to Iran's Ayatollahs?
2. Cut and run, leaving the Sects to fight for dominance?
3. Allow Iran and Turkey to slaughter Kurds?
4. Let China and Russia divvy up the ME oil patch?
5. Take sides with one Sect, and let them pacify the other, as was it done under the Saddam Hussein regime?
6. Impose a Secular Constitution on Iraq, and liquidate the aggressive clerics?
We have no alternative but to pick #5, and eliminate Iran power as a precondition.
#2
The ISG; composed of Generals, Mid-E experts, and cultural professors? Nope.
Composed of folks who've never been on the ground there or in the fight at any level? Yep.
Taking the ISG seriously is like asking me and my drinking buddies to form a study on the macro economic solution to the U.S.'s trade-deficit problems.
If I want to know stuff about the Supreme Court I'll ask Sandra Day, if I want to know stuff about advising a pres maybe I'll ask James Baker; otherwise the ISG is mostly shite.
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty has long been a source of great comfort for the United Nations, and almost no one else. The world's biggest proliferator, China, is a signatory. Another member, Iran, is building a weapons program and professing to play by the rules. So it's encouraging to see the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly ditch the pretense that the NPT should somehow constrain its relationship with India, arguably America's most important strategic ally in Asia, alongside Japan and Australia.
We're referring to the U.S. Senate's passage of a peaceful atomic energy pact with India on Saturday. The bill, which sailed through the House and now goes to the White House for President Bush's signature, revokes America's 1980 ban on selling civil nuclear fuel and technology to the world's most populous democracy. It also marks the first time that Washington has struck a nuclear deal with a non-NPT signatory. It's a neat circle, given that the U.S. helped India develop its nuclear program from the mid-1950s and that it was India's "peace bomb" in 1974 that inspired the creation of the world's voluntary export control club, the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
Since then, India has used its nukes for deterrence in a rough neighborhood. Unlike neighboring Pakistan and China, India has kept tight controls over its nuclear know-how. Unlike Pyongyang, New Delhi hasn't engaged in nuclear blackmail for food and energy. And unlike Iran, India didn't sign up to the NPT and pretend to comply; it stood on principle and never signed up in the first place. While that's not the tack we'd want every democracy to take, at least it was honest.
By inking the deal, Congress has persuaded India to open its doors to IAEA inspections of its 14 civilian facilities. Eight military reactors won't be subject to inspection, but they weren't before the Congressional bill, either. And India has now given more assurances about its intentions by reaffirming its commitments to nonproliferation efforts, such as the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative, and a self-imposed moratorium on future nuclear tests. The U.S. deal can be canceled if India tests another bomb, or is found guilty of proliferation.
Critics worry that the deal's tacit acknowledgment of the NPT's irrelevance will set off an arms race in Asia. That logic doesn't hold up. Rather, it's the aggressive actions of authoritarian states, such as North Korea and China, that have the potential to spark such a race. Will Japan, for instance, reword its constitution and build a nuke because India is buying civilian reactors, or because Pyongyang lobs a missile into the Sea of Japan?
The U.S.-India atomic energy pact is the cornerstone of deepening ties between the two countries that carries huge strategic significance. India sits astride the world's hotspots in Iran, Pakistan and China. While its interests are for peaceful relations with its neighbors, New Delhi has shown that it is on the side of the world's democracies by voting in favor of IAEA and U.N. curbs on Iran's illicit weapons programs -- despite dependence on Iranian crude oil.
Which brings us to another reason to cheer the U.S.-India civilian nuclear deal: It provides clean energy for India and lessens New Delhi's need to turn to Russia and Iran for energy. The latter is a real concern. India's ties to Iran run back centuries, and New Delhi has voiced support for Iran's mullahs before. India's government promised not to pass the U.S. deal unless it had assurances that its relations with Iran wouldn't be put under the U.S. aegis. The bill's language is a compromise and doesn't do that, and nor could it, anyway: India's foreign affairs are under India's purview.
For those worried about proliferation, a best deterrent isn't a piece of paper, but efforts to give democratic countries -- and their voters -- the benefits of behaving responsibly. The total value of U.S.-India trade has doubled since 2001, and should double again within the next few years. Credit New Delhi and Washington for figuring out that they share much, much more than nuclear weapons.
Posted by: john ||
12/11/2006 14:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
Israels prime minister Ehud Olmert embarks on a European tour this week that takes him first to Rome and the Vatican, then to Berlin Tuesday, Dec. 12.
In an interview with the German Der Spiegel , Saturday Dec. 9, he expressed the hope that the international community would take firmer action against Iranian president Ahmed Ahmadinejad for seeking to wipe Israel of the map. Such talk is criminal, he said.
Questioned on Irans nuclear program, Olmert said he does not object to the proposal to engage Tehran in direct talks if they lead to the programs suspension.
As to an Israeli pre-emptive military attack on Iran, the prime minister said: I rule nothing out.
Friday, in a phone conversation with Russian president Vladimir Putin, Olmert said he hoped for progress towards a Security Council vote on sanctions against Iran.
DEBKAfiles analysts liken these wishy-washy phrases to the way US president George W. Bush used to talk in reference to the Iranian nuclear issue. This outdated verbiage from an Israeli leader is worse than useless; it conveys the impression that Israeli has been left with no nuclear deterrence policy, since designated US defense secretary Robert Gates blew Israels nuclear ambiguity cover at his Senate confirmation hearings last week. He succeeded in arbitrarily terminating 40 years of a posture which neither admitted nor denied its nuclear capabilities, with the United States playing along.
The incoming defense secretary took this another step: He made it clear that no one can promise that Iran will not use nuclear weapons against Israel.
In other words, the US has washed its hands of responsibility for stopping Iran nuking Israel (or anyone else for that matter); indeed in a nuclear confrontation, the United States will stand aside.
His words evoked no clear response from government officials in Jerusalem. Maybe they were struck dumb. Or more likely, Israeli official spokesmen have not yet caught onto the fast-moving changes in their countrys strategic values.
This was apparent at a high-profile US-Israeli get-together at the Saban Forum in Washingtons Brookings Institute. The subject: How Israel should deal with its neighbors was put before a star-studded roster of participants: President William Clinton, Israeli vice premier Shimon Peres, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Israeli minister for strategic affairs Avigdor Lieberman, US Assistant Secretary of State David Welch, Israeli foreign minister Zipi Livni, Israeli minister of education Yuli Tamir, former Shin Bet chief and MK Ami Ayalon, as well as the US secretary of states senior adviser on Iraq David Satterfield, former CIA director George Tenet, former Israeli national security adviser Giora Eiland and Israeli military intelligence director Amos Yadlin.
Yet in their discussions did not scrutinize the fallout from the Baker-Hamilton report on Iraq submitted last Wednesday, or the implications of its proposal for Washington to open a diplomatic track with Tehran. No imprint was left by James Bakers revelation to the Senate Armed Forces Committee Thursday, Dec. 7 of the message to Tehran that, subject to certain caveats, Washington would accept the continuation of Irans nuclear activities in return for help in securing an orderly US military withdrawal from Iraq.
The venerable Israeli statesman Shimon Peres alone voiced mild criticism of past and present US policy on Iran when he said the Islamic Republics strength derives from the weakness of the international community and its inability to pull together on the Iranian nuclear threat.
His words contradicted the Olmert governments stance which shifts the onus for dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat to the international community.
Robert Gates won bipartisan acclaim in the US Senate for a new path which presages drastic US policy changes in three spheres which bear profoundly on Israels military and diplomatic situation: Iran, its nuclear program and a Middle East nuclear arms race.
If Olmerts Der Spiegel interview is Israels definitive commentary on the new ground Gates has broken in US foreign policy, Ahmanidejad may be forgiven for assuming that Israel has nothing to say to his threats and Putin for believing he can get away with evasions on effective sanctions against Iran.
Timid diplomatic rhetoric will no longer serve. DEBKAfiles military sources say the time has come for Israel to talk as though it has arrows in its quiver and is capable of using them. Its vanished deterrence can be retrieved, for instance, by press leaks or even an announcement that a new surface missile has been launched, which foreign media would disclose is capable of delivering a nuclear warhead, or the firing of a new Israeli cruise missile from a Dolphin submarine cruising at the Indian Oceans point of convergence with the Arabian Sea.
This is the sort of publicity tactic Tehran employs; it works. The effectiveness of its provocative talk depends on Israel shrinking back, instead of marching forward and hitting back in kind.
Irans radical leaders dont always bother with new or even true shockers. Saturday, the Iranian president recycled an oft-used claim that Iran has started installing 3,000 centrifuges for uranium enrichment at a plant in central Iran, the first step towards industrial production. Nuclear experts immediately seized on the threat embodied in this statement (as was intended) and predicted that within two years, if the centrifuges spin smoothly, Iran will be able to turn out 3-4 small nuclear bombs a year.
Iran, still far from possessing an independent nuclear bomb, has big-mouthed itself into the position of a nuclear power, while Israel, which is the genuine article, is brushed aside as a non-player.
In the past, there was a certain amount of free interplay in public discourse among civilian and military officials on strategic matters. Not today. Olmert exercises tight control over all pronouncements and holds them strictly to his guidelines. Since innovative thinking is not exactly the prime ministers forte, as indicated by his messages to Putin and Der Spiegeli , public discourse in Israel is starved of dynamic ideas.
#1
If Debka is right, this could mean that the US has decided to give up on the Arab world and Iran, and once we leave the place, letting the Israelis annihilate them.
Well, it boils down to this: how many American lives is it worth to keep them from destroying themselves?
Once we leave Iraq, and if a democrat is elected President, no US soldier will want to remain there, it will be another decade before we will have any inclination to involve ourselves with any overseas adventure.
So what will be the price? Tehran, Damascus, Qom, maybe part of Lebanon, maybe Cairo, Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Tripoli, Amman, who knows? They might just choose the top 200 Moslem cities in the world.
#7
Israel should just go ahead and list the countries that they will target in response to a nuclear strike. That list should include Russia and China. And maybe France. That might could make those countries a leetle more serious about Iran's nuclear program.
#8
Clintonian Amerika, the world-ruling USSA = weak and anti-sovereign OWG Global SSR/USR, is not even officially Communist or Socialist Amerika yet and we've already lost 200Milyuuhn + 1/2 of CONUS-NORAM MINIMA as far as the Chicoms + PC/Deniable Russians are concerned, and before we're even de facto invaded. So, iff Amerika has allegedly lost the above or is STate-PLanned to lose the above, what makes Amers think that the WOT > ONLY A MERE "LIMITED WAR/ATTACK" MEANT ONLY TO HURT-HARM AMERICA = AMERIKA IN A LIMITED, ISOLATED = "CONTAINED" WAY, HENCE NOT A WAR FOR SURVIVAL = NOT A WAR TO THE DEATH! THe only thing I see is that Amer-invading Enemy Armies WILL BE RE-LABELED AS UNO PEACEKEEPERS ON THE MISSION TO PC "SAVE [ANARCHIC/SECTARIAN/CIVIL WARRING]AMERICA = FASCIST AMERIKA FROM ITSELF"!?
With the threat of nuclear destruction hanging over us, it makes sense to conduct a debate about an Israeli second strike. While such a discussion will not dissuade Iran's fanatical leaders from attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, it could influence the Iranian nation to rise up against their leaders. Caroline Glick is a good writer, but prone to emotional outbursts. On the surface, it appears that the Ayatollahs are being given a free hand. However, when the President mentioned his responsibility to future "generations," in context of Iran's genocidal policies, I red-flagged a hidden agenda. And it should stay hidden until Dooms-Day. Then we break out the bubbly.
I dunno. Mahmoud's been handing out warnings and 'invitations to convert' like chocolate candies lately. Making sure the Mad Mullahs understand explicitly what would happen seems like a good idea to me. Sometimes you rattle the sword as you draw it.
Moreover, such a debate could influence other regimes in the region like Saudi Arabia which today behave as if Israel's annihilation will have no adverse impact on them. Americans like Baker, Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and their European friends need to understand that as goes Israel so go the Persian Gulf's oil fields. Such an understanding may influence their willingness to enable Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
Tragically, in these perilous times, we are being led by the worst, most incompetent government we have ever had.
Prime Minister Olmert's way of dealing with the Iranian threat is to pretend that it is none of his business. During his visit to the US last month, Olmert abdicated responsibility for safeguarding Israel from nuclear destruction to President Bush. It didn't bother him that Bush didn't accept the responsibility. By mindlessly adhering to non-existent cease-fires with Iranian proxies in Gaza and Lebanon and squawking about peace with them, Olmert continues to behave as if this is someone else's problem.
#2
anon5089:
Ouch! I post a duplicate. Caroline Glick answers her e-mails: caroline@jpost.com
I never supported the 2 state policy. It is dead. Forget cut and run rhetoric; the Dems will come to their senses. Iran poses a future ICBM threat to the US. They will be taken out.
While everyone has been focused, and rightly so, on the danger that a nuclear Iran would pose to the future of Israel and the West, there is another side effect of the international community's ongoing inaction that has been largely overlooked.
And that is the arms race that will inevitably result throughout the Persian Gulf, and the entire Middle East, should Tehran be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.
Indeed, the first signs of it have already begun to appear.
Just yesterday, at a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council in Riyadh, six Arab states - Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates all declared that they too now have atomic ambitions, and would like to obtain the technology necessary to start producing nuclear energy.
Of course, they were quick to insist that it would be for "peaceful purposes" only, but no one can really take this claim very seriously.
Why the sudden interest in nuclear research? Well, it really isn't too hard to guess the answer: all six of the countries involved live within range of Iran, which is busily speeding forward with impunity towards joining the nuclear club.
In other words, by allowing Iran to go nuclear, the world is setting the stage for a mad arms race throughout the entire region, as country after country seeks to protect itself from the threat posed by atomic ayatollahs.
It should be clear what this would mean not only for the safety and security of Israel, but for that of the entire Western world.
Just one more reason why it is time for the US and/or Israel to bomb Iran, sooner rather than later ..
#1
The same notion occurred to me. The Arabs have known or at least suspected for a very long time that Israel has nukes. They also know (or suspect) that Israel won't resort to the Sampson Option unless Israel is facing extinction. Knowing this they (the Arabs) did not build nukes.
(Did they buy a nuke? I don't know but I doubt it if someone thought the nuke could be traced to it's country of origin).
Only thing that is different now is that Iran is building a nuke(s). Now the Arabs want there own.
Does this sudden Arab interest in nukes tell us anything about how close the Persians are to having their own nukes? Does the sudden interest tell us anything about what the Arabs think the Persian intent is for Iranian nukes?
There is a story on RB today where we learn the intel experts in the USA use (if not rely on) google. I'm of the opinion (but can't prove) that the Arabs have better intel inside Iran than does the USA or any Western power. What does the House of Saud know that the USA does not?
What does this sudden Arab need for nuclear power tell us about Iran? The lack of Arab interst in having their own nukes when they knew Israel had them says one thing. The Arab need for nukes now that Persia is building 'em tells us something else.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
12/11/2006 12:04 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Note the discussion of Po 210 in that previous video.
Iran trying to produce it for an a bomb initiation in particular. Does this tie into the London 210 stuff?
#5
Muslim/Islamic govts know world Islam is in dire need of reform + modernization, and they also must be aware that Radical Iran wants to be the SOLE SOURCE, REGIONAL = GLOBAL, of pan-Islamic thought and power. Iff Radical Iran devs nukes, ISTANBUL, CAIRO, + MECCA, ETC. KNOW THEY"LL BE SO MUCH FUTURE GLOWING DEADMEAT AS ISLAMIC CENTRES OF INFLUENCE. They also know any surreal ISRAEL = USA's destruction DOES NOT MEAN ANYONE IS SAFE. POL PRAGMATISM/REALISM > means an ARMS RACE, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
In Macleans magazine last month, Mark Steyn wrote a plaintive piece about how his new book, America Alone, was unavailable in Canadian bookstores an apparent victim of a fear of militant Muslim reprisals.
The Chapters-Indigo chain subsequently insisted it wasnt giving Steyns book the Mein Kampf treatment (banned from being sold in the chain by the boss, Heather Reisman), but that they hadnt anticipated the popularity of America Alone (a best-seller) and hadnt ordered enough copies.
Last I heard, the book was in its fourth printing and, happy to say, a phone check with Chapters indicates theyve now got plenty of the books. Good news, because in my view, America Alone is not a polemic against Muslims in the way that the late Oriana Fallacis The Force of Reason or Melanie Phillips Londonistan are.
Rather, Steyn seems to be saying the rise of militant or extremist Islam is partly our fault the non-Muslim worlds passivity or acquiescence to outrageous acts or intemperate demands.
True, he sees Europe being overwhelmed by Muslims not because of violence, but because of Europes declining birthrate and the high fertility rate of Muslims. Thats a far cry from legions of jihadists sweeping over the continent, intimidating all in its path.
For a stable population that is, no growth a country has to have a fertility rate of at least 2.1 live births per woman. Of all developed countries, only the U.S. meets that standard. Canadas fertility rate is 1.48 while Europe as a whole is even lower at 1.38. Japans is 1.32, Russias 1.14, and so on throughout Europe. Steyn calls it the self-extinction of civilization. In other words, there is no population bomb that many saw threatening the world and its resources.
But Muslim countries have a live birth rate ranging from five to seven per woman that already has had a dramatic effect on Europe.
For example, 10% of Frances population is Muslim.
Yet of citizens under the age of 20, 30% are Muslim.
In the cities that ratio rises to 45%. So when the youth of Paris and other centres erupt in violence and burn cars, rampage the streets, rape and vandalize, statistically its mostly young Muslims.
Huge problem
In Britain and Europe, around 15% of the population is under 15 years old, while in countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, 40% to 50% of the population is under 15. Its going to be a huge problem for all countries when the grandparents outnumber the grandkids.
Demographically, Steyn feels groups with soaring birthrates will eventually dominate todays developed world. Without a shot being fired.
With the U.S. about the only country with a viable birthrate that will keep its population from stagnating, the developed world has virtually surrendered to Muslim militancy.
As a people, we may fret that moderate Muslims are reluctant to speak out against Muslim terrorism and intimidation when they occur, for fear of reprisals.
But non-Muslims are even more loath to risk controversy. So how can moderate Muslims be blamed for their silence?
Steyn is more hawkish than many, especially in the media. Generally, most of the media dont want trouble, or to appear insensitive or intolerant. After 9/11, most media tried to keep things in perspective, and not incite vengeance or reprisals on Muslims.
Fair enough. World leaders made pilgrimages to mosques to set an example.
Cartoon fiasco
While that discouraged anti-Muslim hysteria, it didnt alleviate anti-West passions. Rather, it increased intimidation witness scurrying for cover over the Danish cartoons fiasco, which was never about religion, but about politics and ideology. Today, not much has changed.
We still try to show sensitivity and understanding.
Often, cowardice is camouflaged as principle. Its also a rule of nature, that if you can be intimidated, you will be intimidated.
That doesnt affect the demographic reality that the worlds population will peak before 2050 and then start to decline. Read Steyns book for his answer to the worlds most aggravating problem.
#1
Cultural death by fertility rate only applies if multiple cultures are competing over the same geography. Even then, it is not clear that winning by increased fertility actually constitutes a victory, since a population increase may kill the culture in order to save it.
There is an alternative path to winning the demographic culture war - instead of increasing the fertility rate of one culture, decrease the rate of the competitor(s). At the very least, don't subsidize your competitor/enemy by giving him the food and medicine he is unable to provide for himself. And when the culture war transitions to a shooting war, don't tie one hand behind your back to make it 'fair' - go for the kill.
#2
A substantial drop in world oil production will cause population drops (by starvation) within a year or two of the drop in production. This could happen, say, with a few nukes on oil fields. Oil fuels the cultivation, processing, and delivery of food world-wide.
Excerpt:
"On the global warming front, Senator Snowe co-chairs an international climate change group created by two left wing think tanks backed by Mr. Soros. Through the group Senator Snowe has worked to repudiate President Bush's market based approach in favor of heavy handed regulation to ration energy and raise energy prices- in other words, more green nanny state and less economic freedom and growth. Senator Snowe has been unwilling to honestly answer two basic questions: How much global warming will her policies avert (none) and at what cost (1-3% of GDP)? The lack of honesty, the attacks on freedom and Mr. Soros' involvement suggest that climate change policy is a battlefront in the culture war."
#1
The lack of honesty, the attacks on freedom and Mr. Soros' involvement suggest that climate change policy is a battlefront in the culture war."
well, duh!!
Only a blithering moonbat would not concede that even if global warming is caused and can be tempered by human involvement ( which I do not believe that it is or can be ) the solution is anathema to a free society and would be far worse than the disease: socialist and confiscatory regulation of a market economy.
#2
The unfortunate truth about a select group of "Republicans" in the northeast is that they are not conservative at all, but holdovers of the blue-blood country-club Yankee busybody crowd - and their acolytes - that predates Prohibition. These are the "Republicans" who do not detest leftists for their social policy but rather envy them for being able to get "credit" for carrying it out.
While they often times nominally support free-market causes, they almost universally are cultural Marxists. Sadly, Snow has now even given up on the free market and has crossed to the dark side. Association with Soros is a sure sign of that.
If you've spent any time amongst Northeast Republicans, you'll find that while the rank and file are staunchly conservative/libertarian, the leadership tends to be a lot more like Snow.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
12/11/2006 6:50 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The good news is that if the best the Kyoto crowd can do is get Olympia Snowe as their front man, they're doomed.
The sun wouldn't rise in the east if self-important fools like her were put in charge of the matter.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The sterile, confused lame-duck session of the Republican-controlled 109th Congress ended with a quiet victory by reformers that staved off an estimated 10,000 earmarks. But it could not be called a farewell to pork. As the House approached adjournment Thursday, Democrats signaled they may countenance a return to free and easy spending ways when they assume the majority Jan. 4.
