In Iraq, the U.S. has failed to heed Woodrow Wilsons lesson of self-determination. Instead, dysfunctional borders merely cement foreign policy failures of the past.
#1
There are so many voices that have long screamed that Arabs are either so inferior that they cannot understand democracy; or that it is unnatural to them; or for what ever other reason they just should never be given democracy.
Such voices were ignored long ago, and they should be ignored now.
Democracy was never meant to be an ideal. It does not solve problems instantly. All it offers is a better *way* to solve problems than any alternative.
It is also not very fast in solving problems. For example, democracy in the Paleo territories was declared a failure after its first try. But it is a place raked with anarchy and chaos, of armed gangs and corrupt warlords.
Democracy cannot succeed in a place where there is no responsible alternative in leadership--no one to take a stand for legitimate governance. Voting means nothing if there is no one to vote for--no real choice.
But if someone of character does eventually stand up, strong enough to not be killed immediately, then there is a good chance the Paleos themselves would find in them a popular alternative. From that point, democracy has a meaning.
#2
I agree with Peters on the borders issue. WE consider these European designated borders as sacred when they shouldn't be. The borders were drawn to allow the Europeans to play divide and conquer with the locals, usually that meant putting a minority in charge over a majority. This worked back in the day but has horrible implications now (see Rwanda, see Iraq).
We should have divided Sudan as a warning and then established three administrative areas in Iraq that corresponded to the three main groups. Then let the threat be otherwise unspoken.
Australia must ban fossil fuel imports by 2020 if it hopes to cut greenhouse gas emissions, scientist and Australian of the Year Tim Flannery says.
Commenting ahead of a speech at an ethanol industry conference in Melbourne, Dr Flannery said the Stern report into the world's environmental state identified biofuel use as one of the cheapest methods to halt global warming. But while other nations forged ahead to cut their use of fossil fuels, Australia was well behind, he said.
Places like Sweden have set targets now to eliminate petrol imports by 2020, so they are weaning themselves off fossil fuels, he said. Brazil is obviously doing a great job and there is lots happening in the US and Canada, but Australia is sitting on its hands a bit. We need targets in this country. A good aspirational goal would be to stop importing fossil fuels by 2020. If Sweden can do it, I think there is a very good chance that we can do it, and then work out what the particular strategy is to do that.
The target could be achieved with increased fuel efficiency and the use of biofuels such as ethanol, he said. But vested interests were hampering the biofuel push, Dr Flannery said.
Vested interests, deep laid plots, and the Jooos.
Australia lags behind in a lot of things. We're a little bit isolated. I think that also there are vested interests in Australia. The fossil fuel lobby is quite strong, they are a strong lobby group that wants to protect their patch and we see it with coal and petroleum.
The Government also needed to set a target for how much Australia must reduce carbon dioxide emissions, he said. What needs to be done is for the Government to set some target, he said.If anyone in business went into their board meeting and said 'Don't ask me about what we are going to produce next year or what the target will be', they would be out of a job very, very quickly.
#1
Dr Flannery said the Stern report into the world's environmental state identified biofuel use as one of the cheapest methods to halt global warming.
What the??????
This person just identified himself as an idiot. Biofuels produce carbon dioxide when burned, just the same as gasoline or diesel. Carbon dioxide and methane, two of the most talked-about "greenhouse gasses", are also given off during processing. If there were ever any doubt that "global warming" is a contrived "catastrophe", this eliminated it. What a doofus!
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
04/18/2007 14:14 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Biofuels (plants) take carbon out of the atmosphere. Burning it then returns carbon. Net zero. Mining carbon sources reintroduces carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere millions of years ago.
The catch is that biofuels are low yield and produced with mined fuels as inputs. Oil and gas production has an energy yield of 10-15 while grain ethanol has a yield of 1.3 or lower. In other worlds, to put a gallon of fuel into your tank, it takes 1.1 gallons of oil while it takes 4 gallons of ethanol (if ethanol was the only fuel used in production). A huge effort to go nowhere and a point environmentalists studiously ignore.
Posted by: ed ||
04/18/2007 15:07 Comments ||
Top||
#7
...and there is lots happening in the US and Canada...
Which means what, exactly? Aren't there a lot of cars on our roads? Are we suddenly converting to telecommuting or some such horsepuckey? I suppose our reverting to employ carrier pigeons would further reduce our 'carbon footprint', right?
I can't wait until I read Tim Blair's take on this. Flannerty seems like a watered down version of Al Bore.
Ever wonder why global warming types like this don't discuss alternatives to the energy generation capability they'd like to eliminate?
#8
He can't drive a horse and buggy. Horse gives off CO2 and methane.
And if I rode my bike to work instead, my perspiration would be my excess contribution to the global warming plague. If I have to piss afterwards, all the worse. I suppose I'll just quit my job and preserve my environment...
While John McCain's speech on Iraq got all the attention, his fiscal policy speech Monday was actually more central to his case to be the Republican nominee for president. The country faces some serious fiscal issues, and McCain can make the argument that he is the most credibly committed of the major contenders to tackle them straight on.
The spending culture in Washington has become corrosive, economically and politically. Federal spending is at the highest level, as percentage of national economic output, that it has been since 1996.
Republicans have historically claimed to be the party of spending discipline. Their performance while in control of both the executive and legislative branches has shredded that claim. Federal spending increased under Republican control at twice the rate it did under divided government, when Republicans controlled Congress and Bill Clinton was in the White House. Moreover, earmarks soared under Republican control. Earmarks are appropriations designated by a member of Congress for a local project within his political jurisdiction.
Earmarks, commonly referred to as pork, are corrosive in two ways. First, they detract attention and resources from truly national concerns. Second, once a member has his local bridge or bus stop, he is expected to vote for the overall appropriations bill, regardless of how bloated it becomes.
The tendency to spend is probably endemic to the legislative branch. Certainly electing more Republicans to Congress can no longer be credibly cited as a cure. Spending discipline can only be imposed through the executive branch. However, the tendency among presidents has been to use spending to purchase congressional support for other priorities. President Bush, for example, talks a tough game on controlling spending, but has done utterly nothing concrete to bring it about.
McCain has been a ceaseless and useful public scold on pork, corporate welfare and spending not related to truly national priorities. "Give me the pen," McCain said in his speech to The Economic Club of Memphis, "and I'll veto every single pork barrel bill Congress sends me." There's reason to believe he means it.
The Social Security and Medicare programs as currently constituted are unsustainable. They absorb about 7 percent of economic output today. That's projected to increase to over 12 percent by 2030 and over 17 percent by 2080.
Delaying reform makes reform more difficult and costly. McCain pledged to make reform a priority. He said he would offer bipartisanship, but would not hide behind the need for bipartisanship as an excuse for inaction, as the Bush administration has done. He will submit specific proposals and fight for them. Again, there is reason to believe he means it.
There are two fiscal concerns about McCain. The first is his commitment to growth-oriented tax policy. In 2000, McCain ran as Concord Coalition Man. The Concord Coalition is a useful organization unfortunately hampered by the mistaken belief that the only thing that matters economically is the federal deficit. As a result, it condemns with equal scorn economically productive tax cuts and unproductive spending increases.
McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts. However, he now pledges to preserve them, and to advocate additional reforms that make the tax code "simpler, fairer, flatter, more pro-growth and pro-jobs." So, he is saying the right things. The question is whether he now truly accepts the independent virtue and primacy of growth-oriented tax policy.
The second concern is McCain's belief in the righteousness of federal power and authority when he is in his Rooseveltian (Teddy) mode. There is a risk that the regulatory state would grow unhealthily under McCain. Nevertheless, his proven overall commitment to fight for tough-minded fiscal reform is unmatched by his major rivals.
Rudy Giuliani did some tough things as mayor of New York, but his commitment on these issues is untested. At this point, it's hard to credit Mitt Romney with commitment to anything other than that he should be president. If there is to be a case for a President McCain, it is to curb the Washingtonian spending culture and to face squarely the need to reform Social Security and Medicare.
#1
"The country faces some serious fiscal issues, and McCain can make the argument that he is the most credibly committed of the major contenders to tackle them straight on."
Credibly committed? Not hardly. He's a prominent politician. The best that could be said is that he may not be quite as discredible in this area as most of the others. And there's still that 'Incumbent Protection Act' (Campaign Finance Reform) thing.
#2
Anyone with any ideas at all would be a vast improvement on the pontificating and obstructionism of the liberal asshats that freerange D.C. now. They can bitch all day long, that's easy, but to propose a solution other than "Impeach Bush" is much harder.
#2
PBS used to keep dedicated forum boards up on its national website. After 9-11 they ran an apologist one hour scam show about the life of Muhammad. The viewer response was so negative that within 17 hours or so (memory hazy on exact number) they froze the forum then took it down. I remember musing over what must have been the shows producer's complete horror.
I suspect that PBS's pro Islamic terrorism stance is fueled by their anti-Christian staff. But that's my opinion. Not that it really matters. The fact is PBS is on the Islamic's side and their sedition is and has been in plain site for some time.
Pakistans economy and institutions are deeply penetrated by the countrys army, a new book and documentary film reveal. By Ehsan Masood
There are several scenes from Ziauddin Sardar's forthcoming film in the Dispatches series on Channel 4 television that I won't forget in a hurry. In one, Sardar has the pleasure of accompanying the Karachi police on a night-time anti-terror raid and is later brought face-to-face with a would-be suicide-terrorist.
In another, he walks out of a supermarket and proceeds to empty his shopping bag: out pops a box of cornflakes, followed by some washing powder, and more. Each item, he tells the camera, has been manufactured by a military-run conglomerate. As he leaves, the camera focuses on the building next to where he is standing: It is a branch of the Askari bank, a nationwide network owned by the Army Welfare Trust.
The trust is the second-largest private conglomerate in Pakistan. The largest is the Fauji Foundation (fauji means "soldier"). But the word "private" is something of a misnomer here as both these (and other conglomerates linked to the navy and air force) are run by serving army officers, and some were set up with public funds. Today, their combined assets could be as high as US$20 billion.
Way too long to reproduce here but worth every word: go there, read the whole thing, and come back.
By Rocco DiPippo
I have observed first-hand the effects of the Bush Administration's new Iraq security plan since it began two months ago. Street violence in Baghdad and surrounding areas has declined. Shops and markets once boarded up are reopening. Iraqi civilians are venturing out onto the streets again and living their lives with less fear of being persecuted, tortured, maimed or killed. To be sure, there is still plenty of terror and violence in Iraq, but since the "troop surge" began, it has lessened considerably.
Before offering first hand proof of the new security plan's effectiveness, I must first tell you how some of my Iraqi friends and acquaintances were affected by the violence that ran virtually unchecked through the streets of Baghdad before the plan began taking hold. It is important to do this since the Democratic Party and most of those on the left side of the political spectrum either do not realize, or do not seem to care, that the lives of millions of Iraqis, (our fellow human beings), will be seriously jeopardized should America cut short its efforts to help stabilize their country.
What my Iraqi friends have so far experienced is a taste of what will happen to millions of Iraqis if the reckless Left forces the US from Iraq before the terrorists, including active Al Qaeda members, are driven out of the country.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/18/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Another friend, Mohammed, got tired of living in fear of death or mutilation and so he fled his home and went north to Erbil, where it is relatively safe. There were others like him who were fortunate enough to have had a way to safety - most Iraqis do not, since most countries, including mine, the United States, have all but closed their borders to Iraqi citizens. I am ashamed of that.
Don't blame the victim. The author should be pointing his finger elsewhere. Something he has a difficult time doing amidst all the hand-wringing.
Millions of Iraqi women will experience what Jamilah has, and worse, if the American Left and the Democratic Party are successful in effecting a premature withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. What kinds of sons will those traumatized women raise? How vengeful will those sons be when they come of age?
"Millions" of Muslim women are already experiencing trauma and abuse at the hands of Muslim males. If you widen your scope a bit more, Iraqi women are just part of the overall picture.
In the end, whether Iraq thrives or descends into total chaos depends largely on whether or not American soldiers stay long enough to restore order, and to impart their skills on Iraqi security forces. If American forces leave before law and order is permanently restored, or before Iraq's security forces are capable of holding the line against the terrorists, Iraq surely will be lost.
All righty then, with all the weeping and wailing done with, let's make sure to place the blame where it needs to be settled. Yes, the Democrats and America's Left play a major role in exacerbating the perils that Iraq currently faces. The author hammers on that point like a railroad spike.
Some greater attention needs to be given to (gasp) Root Causes. Ones like Iran and their incessant meddling. Ones like Sunni sponsorship of global terrorism. Yes, a lot hinges on a continuing American presence, but what about Iraq's politicians cleaning up their collective acts? What about scumbags like Moqtada Sadr who adamantly refuse to cooperate in any peaceful resolution of this crisis?
Enough self-flagellation already! Apply the lash to those Muslim factions that bear deep responsibility for protracting the Iraqi people's misery. Start highlighting the need for more aggressive intervention at much higher levels. Starting at, say, Teheran.
Without this author properly limning out the real topography of why Iraq is such a shitheap, far too much blame is being thrust rather unfairly upon American shoulders. Personally, I am sick to death of it and require these sort of apologias to identify the true villians.
Yes, the Left and American Democrats have much to answer for. Yes, their humanitarian artifices are a truly disgusting form of moral hypocrisy. However, they are but a small part of a much larger problem called radical Islam. A problem that would still exist even if the Democrats did not. To piss and moan about the problems that beset Iraq and give so little attention to the central players in this ongoing cycle of bloodshed serves no one any good except the terrorists themselves.
#2
A different perspective based on some maps I've seen detailing the changing Sunni/Shiia makeup of Baghdad. Previously, Sunni and Shiia were spread throughout the city with many mix neighbourhoods and few clear borders. Now Sunni and Shiia neighbourhoods are separated and the borders known. People know not to cross into the other's territory - just like Belfast in the 70s.
I expect similar segregation has happened in the areas around Baghdad.
Paradoxically, it is easier to enforce law order in segregated areas as there is no long a pervasive climate of fear and distrust.
At times, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad looks (and acts) like someone ready for his own show on Cartoon Network (Mahmoud, Mahmoudd & Mahmoudy? The Terrorist Adventures of Little Hitler and the Supreme Leader?). From his goofy appearance to his outlandish pronouncements, Ahmadinejad often resembles something from the storyboards of Danny Antonucci, Maxwell Atoms, or Craig McCracken. But alas, Iran's best-known cartoon figure is very real, and very determined to acquire nuclear weapons. So his rantings can't be totally dismissed.
But they can be quantified and deflated, as require. Consider Ahmadinejad's recent announcement that his army has attained "self-sufficiency," and boasts that recent U.N. sanctions have no affect on the Iranian armed services. As proof of this, the stenographers at the Associated Press obligingly published Ahmadeinjad's claims, and supposed examples of an expanding arms industry:
"Since 1992, it has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane. It announced in 2005 that it had begun production of torpedoes."
But that doesn't mean the stuff is any good, or that Tehran has actually achieved self-sufficiency in military production. In fact, a closer examination reveals that the Iranian claim is full of holes, but you wouldn't know that by reading the AP dispatch.
We'll begin with that Iranian "fighter plane," nicknamed "Saegheh," the Farsi word for "thunderbolt." As we observed last September, this "new" fighter is nothing more than a re-manufactured U.S. F-5, which has been in the Iranian inventory for more than 30 years. Aside from a second vertical stabilizer (and a slightly expanded nose cone), it appears to have little in the way of new features and capabilities; it is certainly not a match for U.S. F-16s or F-18s, as Tehran boasted last September. Given its modest performance (in comparison to fourth and fifth-generation western jets), we suggested that a better name might be the Farsi term for "target."
Additionally, Iran shows no signs that it will mass-produce the Saegheh. That means that aging, U.S.-built F-4 Phantom IIs and F-14 Tomcats will remain the backbone of Tehran's fighter fleet, at least for the near term. At last count, the Iranian Air Force had only 30 "operational" Phantoms, and only a half-dozen F-14s that were flyable. Making matters worse, there are indications that none of the Tomcats have a functional air-intercept radar (used for tracking and engaging enemy aircraft), and none of their long-range Phoenix missiles work, either. If Iran was truly self-sufficient, you'd think they would have found a way to keep more of their fighters in the air.
And similar problems exist among Tehran's other, foreign-produced aircraft, including the MiG-29 Fulcrum (made in Russia), and the Chinese-manufactured F-7 (a copy of the MiG-21 Fishbed). Mission-capability rates among both jets remain dismally low, despite the supposed availability of Russian and Chinese advisers, spare parts, and good, old-fashioned Iranian "know-how." So much for self-sufficiency, at least in the skies.
Iran's missile program is a cause for greater concern. Thanks largely to North Korea, Tehran has a growing arsenal of short, medium and intermediate-range missiles, along with various models of battlefield rockets. But the accuracy of these systems leaves much to be desired; one reason that Iran is actively pursuing WMD is because its current missiles (and rockets) are incapable of precision strikes with conventional munitions. Tehran's crowning achievement in missile technology (the medium-range Shahab-3) is essentially an extended range SCUD, with a CEP of three kilometers or more at long range. And all of Iran's existing missile systems are vulnerable to intercept by ballistic missile defenses in the region, reducing their potential effectiveness. Iran could probably sustain some semblance of the current program without outside assistance, but improving range and accuracy will still require foreign expertise.
Readers may also recall that Iran's "advanced" high-speed torpedo (also mentioned in the AP article) is largely based on a World War II-era Russian design. If you've watched a classic submarine movie like Run Silent, Run Deep, you've got the idea. For the torpedo to work, you've got to develop a primitive firing "solution," then hope the target doesn't maneuver or dispense counter-measures. Against a modern warship, employing existing ASW measures, the Iranian torpedo is anything but a world-beater.
In the air defense arena, Iran can perform limited maintenance on its I-HAWK system, acquired from the U.S. in the 1970s. But the number of available missiles, launchers and support equipment have declined steadily in recent years, reflecting the problems associated with an aging system--and the Iran's modest ability to keep the system in service. Similar problems exist among Tehran's other "legacy" air defense systems, the Russian-made SA-5 and the Chinese-produced CSA-1. Iran probably has higher in-service rates for its newer SAMs, including the SA-6 and SA-15, the product of Russian contractor support that came with those arms sales. But those missiles are limited in number; the I-HAWK remains the backbone of Tehran's air defense network, and the system is hardly a sterling example of Iranian self-sufficiency.
As for the ground equipment, Iranian-produced main battle tanks (Zulfiqr 1/2/3, Safir 74) are either copies of existing designs (the Safir is a duplicate of the China Type 59 tank, which in turn was copied from the Soviet T-54/55 series), or a blend of older western and Russian designs. The Zulfiqr, for example, blends technology from U.S. M-48 and M-60 tanks (dating from the 1950s and 60s), along with components from the Russian T-72. Hardly a match for the U.S. M-1 Abrams, or Russia's T-80 for that matter.
Still, the Iranians derive some benefit from these claims. From the hardware perspective, these programs provide a starting point--a potential springboard for building better systems somewhere down the road, with continued external assistance. From a propaganda standpoint --Ahmadinejad's real aim--the boast reinforces perceptions of Iran's growing military power, and raises concerns about the potential "cost" of a military conflict with Tehran. And, as we've noted on many occasions, the Iranian president's wild assertions go virtually unchallenged by the western press. So, from his vantage point, it makes perfect sense to continue the propaganda game, offering cartoonish claims about growing military power and self-sufficiency that have only a marginal basis in fact.
Victims of the Culture of Terrorism Well, they do know from terrorism...
Mondays mayhem on the Virginia University campus in the US was just the latest spate of violence in a country run by a clique that sees its survival in the terrorisation of the world.
It was the deadliest campus shooting in the US superseding the 1966 bloodbath at Texas University, where Charles Whitman shot dead 16 people before he was shot dead by the police.
When it was all over in Virginia, 33 bodies of students and university staff, some of them award-winning professors, were accounted for, including the gunman, believed to be from Washingtons staunch East Asian ally, South Korea.
It was unclear whether Chou Seung Hui killed himself as alleged, or was shot by the police. Even his motives remain ambiguous.
But what grieved many Americans were the motives of the regimes marching in and out of the White House whether Republican or Democrat that refuse to ban or limit public possession of firearms despite the frequency of such gory incidents. Why, because the regimes have connections to the arms manufacturers, and thrive on the profits earned through violence and bloodshed.
Observers were quick to note the hypocrisy in President George W. Bushs expression on the Virginia bloodbath. Bush, who never misses an opportunity to terrorize the world and whose terrorist troops have massacred hundreds of thousands of people in occupied Iraq without the least remorse, feigned grief and called the campus incident horrible.
What a preposterous liar! He relishes war, violence, bloodshed and destruction. He has completely destroyed the infrastructure of Iraq and Afghanistan. He unabashedly supports the bloodcurdling crimes of the Zionists against Palestinians.
He has scant regard for the life of Americans as well. His buddies had masterminded the supposed hijacking of aircraft from Boston and the subsequent implosion of New York World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 that killed over three thousand US citizens. He sends young Americans to die in foreign lands in order to satisfy his insatiable lust for power and wealth.
According to reliable reports so far 12,000 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq and another 28,000 wounded, most of them disabled for life, although the heavily censored figures of the Pentagon claim a mere 2,304 deaths as part of the plot to deceive mislead public. Yet Bush wants to send more troops to that terrorised land and is ready to risk the loss of the entire armed forces of the US by trying to pick up a fight with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Imagine such a cold-blooded killers expression of grief and the use of the word horrible for the Virginia University Campus shooting!
The American people ought to wake up before it is too late. The anti-war movement should gather momentum and focus on domestic issues as well, since basically it is the breakdown of morals in society and the promotion of crimes, violence, sins of the flesh that produce devilish broods such as the neo-conservatives, who break every humanitarian law by experimenting with and manufacturing even more deadly atomic weapons than the 10,000 plus nuclear warheads in the US arsenal.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, as part of its humanitarian duty and concern for the American people, has duly sent its condolences to the bereaved families and expressed sympathies to the survivors of the two-hour ordeal, who are undoubtedly the victims of the culture of violence and bloodshed preached by the super terrorists in the White House.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
04/18/2007 09:58 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Pretty lame stuff. The editorial writers need to take lessons from the old-school KCNA writers.
After the resignation of Hezbollah ministers from the Lebanese government, I asked the resigned Lebanese Energy Minister, Mohammed Fneish: "Do you raise the ceiling of your demands because you possess weapons, unlike others?"
He answered: "If we had acted on the basis that we have weapons, we would have demanded more than this."
At the time, Hezbollah was acting, apparently at least, as a political party. It was talking about dialogue and democracy, but today, it is clear that it seeks 'more than that'. It wants to have the right to shape political life. It had explicitly announced, through its secretary general, replacing dictation through weapons with dialogue. In Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's speech last Monday, it was clear that the man was determined to sidestep the current political approach on the Lebanese arena. He closed the door to the opportunities that have been afforded in the previous stage and told his political enemies in an incontrovertible way: 'Either you accept Hezbollah's conditions or face chaos'.
Hezbollah's conditions, which Sayyed Nasrallah referred to in his speech, are not limited to canceling the establishment of the tribunal - although that is impossible - or to finding a formula so that the State legitimizes the Party's weapons, although the issue of incorporating Hezbollah's weapons is a lie that was made by the Party and believed by others.
The conditions are far from rejecting the details of the government solution. In short, they mean re-arranging the rights of communities in the Lebanese political life.
In his speech, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah linked the fate of Lebanon to the political changes in the region by recalling the tense situation between Washington and Tehran. This link should not only be viewed from the perspective of disengagement between the majority and the opposition or of its impact on the enthusiasm of the international parties, particularly the US, which has lost interest in searching for solutions for the Lebanese problem.
In his speech, Sayyed Nasrallah sidestepped the crisis and went straight to his long-sought objective: possessing arms in the name of liberation. He wanted to deliver a message to the effect that we have been patient in the hope that you will understand that the balance of power between the communities has changed, not only in Lebanon, but also in the region. But you did not realize that. I am reading to you from the last page: Lebanon has been living on the basis of sectarian pro rata since independence, and our share today is 'more than that'. If the Maronites feel that they are marginalized and seek to regain their role, we feel that we have been victims of injustice, because we did not have a role in the past. Therefore, you should sit next to us at table that is not round, and at the head of which we will sit, to correct the distribution before talking about the details of the last stage.
He hinted at the new shape of Lebanon to come through deciding the future of the Presidency of the Republic, saying that President Emile Lahoud will remain until the last day of his tenure. He insisted on toppling the prime minister. In his next speech, he will be more straightforward in dictating his terms to the majority.
There is no doubt that Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's speech resembles, to a great extent, the first statement of military confrontations that are almost certain. Furthermore, it is part of Hezbollah's attempt to undermine the Lebanese State with its current structure. In his speech, Sayyed Nasrallah closed all the windows of opportunity, saying in a supercilious voice: 'My way or the highway' (or 'me or the cataclysm'), but he forgot the fact that the majority sees no difference between the two options. The implementation of the agenda put forward by the Secretary General in his speech will lead to a cataclysm: releasing the accused in the assassination of Hariri, canceling the tribunal and maintaining Hezbollah's State within the Lebanese State will not grant the Lebanese sovereignty, freedom and coexistence. He also forgot that the cataclysm will not leave him any room to achieve his dream of a 'State'.
Certainly, Hezbollah as it is currently is not the party that the Lebanese and the Arabs knew before the July War. The party of liberation, resistance and symbol of dignity has today become a political and military tool to achieve the foreign objective, which is being implemented in the region.
Unfortunately, we may say that Hezbollah is trying hard to undermine the formula of sectarian coexistence between Muslims and Christians. He has even gone too far by repeating the Iraqi experiment through fomenting sectarian division between Muslims in Lebanon.
More dangerous is that the 'Resistance Party' now moves in accordance with the developments on other fronts: if pressure is increased on Tehran, he will create a war with Israel, and if tension is heightened between the US and Syria, he will fan the flames in the Lebanese arena. The Party has subjected Lebanon to the interests of others in the name of opposition to the US project at some times, and in the name of libration at other times. Ironically, he never stops accusing others of being dependent on foreign powers.
It seems that Lebanon has a date with summer wars. Although the previous war broke out by accident, or because of miscalculation, this time it will be started by Hezbollah by design.
Israel wants to restore its dignity through another round of war against Lebanon. Hezbollah has not failed until now in playing its role. The escalation experienced by the Lebanese arena will facilitate the job of Israeli generals. Hezbollah believes that through the new war, it will avoid the international tribunal, or it just pretends to do so to serve goals whose results will come to light next summer.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/18/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
Got an email from the head of Andrew's "baseball" league letting us know "games" start this week.
As a reminder of our league rules for this level, no scores will be kept and all players will bat each inning, regardless of the number of outs made by the fielders. All players will play in the field. Coaches will pitch to batters, up to 5 or 6 pitches, with the hope that each child will be able to put the ball into play. There will be no walks and no strikeouts. If the batter is unable to hit the pitched balls, the player will hit off of a batting tee for that at bat. Games will last an hour, regardless of the number of innings played.
Safety is a priority, and there will be no on deck swinging of bats during a teammate's at bat. All players not on base or at bat should be in the dugout until it is their turn to come to the plate to hit. Please, no climbing of the fences. Coaches, please make sure that you have your safety kits and medical release forms with you at all practices and games, and report any injuries to me.
Why don't we just wrap them in protective bubble wrap and let them lay down in the outfield for an hour? That way nobody gets hurt and nobody goes home a loser, you know, just like in real life.
#1
Yes, below a certain age just about every sport has the "everybody is above average!" ethic. Which is why these kids tend to be so fragile when they get older: they've never been taught how to handle defeat gracefully and learn lessons from it.
Posted by: Jonathan ||
04/18/2007 9:59 Comments ||
Top||
#2
These poor kids these days. My heart goes out to them. They'll never know the joy of BB guns, splodey frogs, knives, matches, bicycles without helmets and knee guards, dodge ball with dirt clods (rocks). The list goes on. Sad.
#3
Everyone wins and all must have prizes. This bullsh*t is why I quit teaching. I could no longer tolerate the ever-increasing and for the most part totally unearned self-esteem (better described as self-regard) of the little bastards.
I used to enjoy playing Orcs and Men/Elves/Dwarves/Hobbits in thick woods with whatever was at hand. Amazingly nobody broke any bones or needed stitches.
#7
Half of life is learning how to take a punch and get up again. My first football coach told us that the only way for most people to find the 'will to win' is to discover just how distasteful it is to lose.
Posted by: frank martin ||
04/18/2007 15:17 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I could no longer tolerate the ever-increasing and for the most part totally unearned self-esteem (better described as self-regard) of the little bastards.
As I like to say:
Never has there been a generation so full of self esteem, or for so little reason.
"That what doesn't kill you makes you stronger".
Or: What doesn't kill me merely delays the inevitable.
PS: BrerRabbit, sounds like you grew up around the same time I did. Kids who don't get a little road rash never learn to steer properly. Through over-protection, we're removing all consequences for stupidity and oafishness. We can only fight evolution for so long before something so simple as shoelaces or gravel will trip us up.
#11
Amazingly nobody broke any bones or needed stitches.
Wussies! Then you weren't doing it right! 8-)
Posted by: Natural Law ||
04/18/2007 19:59 Comments ||
Top||
#12
we used to play in my neighbor's long driveway - lined on both sides with brick planters - a street hockey game. A goalie and four players each side, with a guy with a hockey stick on a skateboard, getting pulled by a bike X2 per side. The collisons were spectacular, the blood washed off. All went well til Russell broke his arm and leg in one collision and his brother nearly lost an eye....
good times. good times.
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/18/2007 20:25 Comments ||
Top||
#13
his brother nearly lost an eye....
It's all fun and games until somebody pokes their eye out and then ... Hey! Free eyeball!
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.
