(Comment at Slashdot.org)
by Terje Mathisen - Been there, Done that. [Re. Start your own company]
Before taking a one-year sabbathical (91-92) which I spent in the US, writing networking code, I had a company that sold terminal emulation/file transfer software. I sold enough licenses to make it one of the top 5 bestselling norwegian programs. During the last year the norwegian IRS grabbed 83% of every Krone I invoiced my customers.
At that point I realized that I'd much rather work less and spend more time with my wife & kids, so I closed the company. Explains why so many people move to the U.S. to start a company.
#1
This is the model the Dems are working towards.
Never forget it.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
01/08/2007 7:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
He should feel privileged to generate income for the State. Making profit is a smelly exercise, and the government can put it to a much better use than you can - you'd just waste it, anyway, on something useless like an investment which would just generate more profit. A vicious cycle.
#3
This is very disheartening. Remember, your Norwegian government more than ever needs your monies to support the ever growing muzzie enclave they are welcoming in. These lazy bastards have no intention of working. They intend to sip tea, seethe, conspire to overthrow the existing government, and gang rape your daughters. Please get off your ass and get back to work.
#1
Compliant prisoners grouped in a medium security complex imply confidence they will be released in due time.
They should have waited for their buddy Chavez to come to the rescue.
Hopefully they let one of the guys with AIDS join his comrades in the group complex. Two nights into the first Muslim Holiday would have saved the taxpayers lots of money.
H/T The Corner Long read, but what a history lesson and the position the world finds itself today. Since he works for W, got to mean, W has read this and has an understanding of what we are facing. Well worth the read before Bush's speech Wednesday night.
President Bush has said that the war against global jihadism is more than a military conflict; it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century. We are still in the early years of the struggle. The civilized world will either rise to the challenge and prevail against this latest form of barbarism, or grief and death will visit us and other innocents on a massive scale.
Given the stakes involved in this war and how little is known, even now, about what is at the core of this conflict, it is worth reviewing in some detail the nature of our enemy - including disaggregating who they are (Shia and Sunni extremists), what they believe and why they believe it, and the implications of that for America and the West.
The sections:
Islam in the World Today
Shia and Sunni: Different Histories
Shia and Sunni: Different Eschatologies
Contemporary Sunni Radicalism
Contemporary Shia Radicalism
Concluding Thoughts
It is the fate of the West, and in particular the United States, to have to deal with the combined threat of Shia and Sunni extremists. And for all the differences that exist between them -- and they are significant -- they share some common features.
Their brand of radicalism is theocratic, totalitarian, illiberal, expansionist, violent, and deeply anti-Semitic and anti-American. As President Bush has said, both Shia and Sunni militants want to impose their dark vision on the Middle East. And as we have seen with Shia-dominated Iran's support of the Sunni terrorist group Hamas, they can find common ground when they confront what they believe is a common enemy.
The war against global jihadism will be long, and we will experience success and setbacks along the way. The temptation of the West will be to grow impatient and, in the face of this long struggle, to grow weary. Some will demand a quick victory and, absent that, they will want to withdraw from the battle. But this is a war from which we cannot withdraw. As we saw on September 11th, there are no safe harbors in which to hide. Our enemies have declared war on us, and their hatreds cannot be sated. We will either defeat them, or they will come after us with the unsheathed sword.
All of us would prefer years of repose to years of conflict. But history will not allow it. And so it once again rests with this remarkable republic to do what we have done in the past: our duty.
#1
W and his people can tell the truth until the sun goes down but if the people lack the will to fight it's just words. I'm afraid W has blown his chance to motivate the people; unless he has a drastic change of direction, he and his administration are just going to kick the can down the road and let the next administration pick it up, and hope the people are finally up to the task of supporting a long war. And I'm very, very pessimistic about that.
Posted by: Jonathan ||
01/08/2007 14:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
" Our enemies have declared war on us, and their hatreds cannot be sated. We will either defeat them, or they will come after us with the unsheathed sword."
Finanly someone in Bush's circle that sees the situation. When you are attacked you don't get to choose when the fight stops your only option is victory or accept the enemies terms of surrender.
9-11 was not the first attack but it was the straw that broke the camels back so to say. Their is no path no but victory or accept the Jihadi/radical islamist terms.
I think Bush should make it clear to the people in his speech we only have two choices
1) Fight until we win NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES
2) Accept the enemies terms: that means adobtion of Sharia followed by stoning of all Gays, unwed mothers, aitheist, ect... Dimmini taxes for all Jews & Christians who refuse to convert. Maybe then we will finally win the Radical Islamist "hearts & minds".
When the people understand our choices the decision becomes a no brainer. Our goal after 9-11 was to stop the attacks there is only two ways to do that option 1 or 2.
Damm I wish I could write just one of Bush's speeches. Bush has the right idea but his lack of ability to communicate to the people is horrific. There is just no reason why a war of survival should have moral problems at home.
#3
What people keep avoiding is that morale problems back home are directly due to the influence of the MSM and the opportunistic Dems. The MSM has shown itself to be corrupt and venal {paying off Saddam by not reporting bad things, hiring known Baathists as stringers, etc}; and a large number of Democrats have proven themselves to be political opportunists of the worst stripe - voting for and against the war, blowing up the guard problem in AG, NOT voting for new body armor when it came up and then screaming at the Bush Admin when questions about body armor came up, etc.
As long as certain Dems can ride their anti-American, anti-war, and BDS attitudes into office, they will keep it up. They have demonstrated that the only thing they are concerned with is gaining political office and feathering their nest while in that office. Not that this sort of activity should be a shock to anyone who know history, just look at what the Dems did during the Civil War.
If Winston Churchill is still loitering in the uplands of Purgatory (I have no particular information about such things), I wonder if he has had a chance to reconsider his famous dictum that, "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."
Yes, gentle reader, this is going to be another of my warmongering columns. Today's point of departure is the meeting at Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt between the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, and the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert. I have diligently read all the diplomatic effusions generated by that brief encounter, and I defy anyone to find a single point of substance that was decided, or even discussed. Except, the People's Daily website in Beijing, asserts that the two leaders may have agreed to further meetings -- on the basis of information I cannot find elsewhere.
Now, Churchill's dictum might apply if there were any present danger of a war between Israel and Egypt. But by the current standards of the region, that is among the least likely things to happen. No: Mr Mubarak was (reportedly) trying to broker peaceful arrangements between Israel and the Palestinians. Odd, because the war currently raging is between two factions of the Palestinians, and the Israelis can do little but wait for one of the scorpions to finish eating the other.
Mr Mubarak himself -- a charming and intelligent man, and only an authoritarian despot, or "moderate" as we say in diplomatic parlance -- looked ill-at-ease in the press conference. It was as if he himself was asking the question, "What am I doing here?" One almost wanted to cry out, "It is okay, Hosni: you are having 'talks'."
It is hard to know what anyone can do, but watch, as one reflects on such events as the big, radical Muslim parade through Nazareth in Israel that marked Christmas. Nazareth, like Bethlehem, is one of those ancient Christian towns that has recently ceased to have a Christian majority, and from all reports, the purpose of this huge demonstration was to intimidate the Christians who remain. Being able to do this well within the boundaries of the State of Israel, added a poignant touch.
I consider this relevant because, any possibility for genuine peace in the region must necessarily include provisions that would grant Christians (and Jews, and Zoroastrians for that matter) "quiet lives and daughters with curls". But with whom could the targets of such demonstrations, or any government that represents them, possibly negotiate?
Mr Mubarak himself -- I mentioned he is intelligent? -- perfectly realizes he has nothing to negotiate with. He has no control over either Palestinian faction, and when he tries to uphold the significant peace agreement signed with Israel by his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, he faces Egyptian public opinion that has long since rejected the principles it enunciates. For whether a neighbouring government does or doesn't sign a piece of paper with Israel, the non-acceptance of Israel's right to exist remains a fact of life throughout the Arab Muslim world.
It is under just such conditions, that the truly percipient observer must conclude that there is nothing to talk about.
Instead, there are any number of things to be done, to the purpose of securing whatever frontiers can be secured, and keeping the worst enemies of civilization in a state of hounded confusion. This, more or less, has been the Western strategy, from President Bush down, and while it offers unsatisfying overall results, it can at least create a few sunlit meadows here and there, where the possibility of peaceful coexistence might eventually gain some traction.
Churchill's dictum applied with some force to a vastly different historical situation, wherein the conflicts were between organized and disciplined European states. And it is true, in such a case, that talking -- about almost anything at all -- is preferable to dropping bombs on one another. Moreover, whether or not the signatory of a peace agreement delivered on its terms, that signatory at least had the power to deliver.
This is not what pertains today, across the Middle East, where old-fashioned European-style diplomacy is about as idle a pursuit as one could imagine.
Cynics surely found the words of good will exchanged by the new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the new House minority leader, John Boehner, at the opening session of the new Congress to be hypocritical and insincere. The two leaders are grizzled veteran pols, after all, who have not been known to be on close, much less candid, terms with each other over the years. But I know them both, and I believe they were speaking genuinely from the heart.
The passage of power from one political party to another is an awesome thing for anyone who knows much history, indeed for anyone who clicks his remote control onto cable news. It is not the norm in human history. And the swearing in of a 110th Congress -- 110th! -- is part of a living chain that links us to George Washington and to James Madison, who was sworn in as a member of the House in the First Congress, 218 years ago.
Which isn't to say that there isn't going to be some bitter conflict between the new Democratic Congress and George W. Bush in months ahead. That's not out of line with tradition, either: Madison was opposing Washington's major initiatives long before the First Congress adjourned. In that case, the conflict occurred over Alexander Hamilton's economic policies. In this case, the conflict seems likely to occur over what we should do next in Iraq.
Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have made it clear that they take the Democratic victory last November as a mandate for withdrawal from Iraq. That's a point you could argue with -- you could make a case from the polls that what voters want most of all is victory and success. But Pelosi and Reid and almost all of their Democratic colleagues are sincere in their view, which is at the least plausible.
George W. Bush, from all accounts, seems to take a different view. He evidently sees the November result as a verdict of dissatisfaction with unsuccess and lack of victory, and so is promising a "new way forward." He has been prompted by his party's "thumpin'" to change the way he manages.
Since the success of the major military operations in May 2003, he has delegated power to appointees he trusts and has mostly ratified their plans. Far from micromanaging the military, he and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seem to have approved pretty much everything that Centcom head Gen. John Abizaid and the rotating military commanders in Iraq have proposed. They seem not to have taken the advice of military historian Eliot Cohen in his book "Supreme Command" that wartime commanders in chief should constantly question, probe, prod and, yes, even overrule their generals, as Lincoln, Clemenceau, Churchill and Ben Gurion did.
Now it looks like Bush is doing something like that. Rumsfeld's resignation was announced the day after the election; Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte has been moved over to State; Abizaid's retirement has been announced; and Gen. George Casey, the on-the-ground commander in Iraq, is being moved out early. Bush is reported to be planning a "surge" of additional troops into Iraq to establish order in Baghdad and Anbar province. Clearly, the president is changing tactics and maybe even strategy.
Many Democrats are calling this "escalation" and are swearing they'll oppose it. For those who see Iraq through the prism of Vietnam, a surge is something like Richard Nixon's invasion of Cambodia, an intensification of a war that never seems likely to go away.
I have been of the view that the Democratic Congress would not use its legislative powers to bar an increase in troop levels, for fear they would be seen as not supporting the troops already there (and for fear they couldn't get majorities on the floor), and I still think that's unlikely. There's a danger in being seen as promoting an American defeat. But the left wing of the Democratic Party will be calling loudly for defunding the war, and as we saw last week, in a jarring episode during the festivities, Cindy Sheehan can outshout the Democratic leadership.
I think we're going to see a very loud and bitter clash, one that will contrast vividly with the graceful words of Pelosi and Boehner on opening day. One side wants American victory and success, though it cannot promise that they are certain; the other wants only exit, without regard to the consequences. The 110th Congress will be no more devoid of controversy and angry partisanship than the First.
#1
For the past three years I have argued that the inner logic of ethnic decline would shape the United States' Iraq policy, rather than the messianic social engineering that temporarily turned the Bush administration's brains into pulled pork.
January 6, 2007 -- WORD that Adm. William Fallon will move laterally from our Pacific Command to take charge of Central Command - responsible for the Middle East - while two ground wars rage in the region baffled the media.
Why put a swabbie in charge of grunt operations?
There's a one-word answer: Iran.
ASSIGNING a Navy avia tor and combat veteran to oversee our military operations in the Persian Gulf makes perfect sense when seen as a preparatory step for striking Iran's nuclear-weapons facilities - if that becomes necessary.
While the Air Force would deliver the heaviest tonnage of ordnance in a campaign to frustrate Tehran's quest for nukes, the toughest strategic missions would fall to our Navy. Iran would seek to retaliate asymmetrically by attacking oil platforms and tankers, closing the Strait of Hormuz - and trying to hit oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates.
Only the U.S. Navy - hopefully, with Royal Navy and Aussie vessels underway beside us - could keep the oil flowing to a thirsty world.
In short, the toughest side of an offensive operation against Iran would be the defensive aspects - requiring virtually every air and sea capability we could muster. (Incidentally, an additional U.S. carrier battle group is now headed for the Gulf; Britain and Australia are also strengthening their naval forces in the region.)
Not only did Adm. Fallon command a carrier air wing during Operation Desert Storm, he also did shore duty at a joint headquarters in Saudi Arabia. He knows the complexity and treacherousness of the Middle East first-hand.
STRENGTHENING his qualifications, numer ous blue-water assignments and his duties at PACOM schooled him on the intricacies of the greater Indian Ocean - the key strategic region for the 21st-century and the one that would be affected immediately by a U.S. conflict with Iran.
#1
Isn't this the guy who was cozying up with the chicoms? Performing information "exchanges" where we get nothing and the Chinese get everything? Just saw something on TV the other day where a launch arrived from an American destroyer, and the Chinese smiled and laughed and ganbei'd with the buffoonish Americans.
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.
