from the Neo-Neocon blog, an excellent summation. Hat tip Fausta. I wish I had written this.
The fate of Zeleya and Honduras has dropped off the radar screen for the moment, but on Saturday Fausta filled us in on the most recent developments. The summary version: the UN, which is now mostly a vehicle to promote tyranny, wants Zeleya back, whereas patriots in Honduras are working feverishly to prevent their country from becoming another Venezuela. Obama, of course, is on the side of the UN.
Why do I keep pursuing this topic? What do we care about little Honduras?
Well, call me a nefarious neocon if you must (wait a moment; I just had to answer my phone to take a message about my next cabal meeting)--but I happen to be in favor of not only democracy, but constitutional checks on the possible tyranny of the majority in a democracy. And I would like to preserve such things even for little countries like Honduras, whose government is trying mightily and heroically to maintain its sovereignty, and to stop those who would usurp its ability to protect itself from that tyranny.
Unfortunately, our very own President Obama is among those people.
Honduras is facing something that has happened before, in many times and many places. But to recognize what's been occurring there and what it signifies, one must know something about history, most particularly about how such power grabs occur. Then the patterns become clear.
I've written about those patterns before, here and here. If you go back and read both of those pieces--the first is about Chavez and Venezuela, the second is more general--you'll see how very relevant they are to what Zeleya has been trying to do in Honduras (and see this for the very best summary I've seen so far of that situation).
The way is clear: tyrants very often use "democracy" as an excuse to get the people to override a constitution and grant them what turns out to be dictatorial, or near-dictatorial, powers, as well as the ability to extend or abolish term limits and stay in power longer than the constitution says (and in many cases indefinitely). Once the rules are changed about term limits, and power is consolidated and the voting apparatus compromised, staying in power is a relatively easy matter, really a trifle.
Most dictators of recent history have gone this route; the path is well worn and the methods tried and true. Zeleya was attempting to follow in the footsteps of compadre Chavez, and the government and people of Honduras knew it.
Obama knows it too, or should know it. So we come down once again to the choice of whether Obama is a fool or a knave. I vote the latter, but the former doesn't comfort me either.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#5
Some time ago I had the idea that the only real democracy is the ability to vote with ones feet. If that is true, then it makes sense for the anti-democratic forces of the world (sadly including the current resident of the White House) to spread their disease to as many nations as possible.
Honduras doesn't matter, except as an alternative to Venezuela, Nicaragua or the like. One relatively free nation in a region makes all the others look bad. Bush knew this when he invaded Iraq, and his detractors knew it when they opposed the invasion.
Publicly, President Obama and senior officials in his administration berated North Korean leader Kim Jong Il last week for firing 11 ballistic missiles eastward into the Sea of Japan, four short-range missiles on July 2 and seven medium-range missiles on July 4. It was the biggest North Korean missile barrage seen so far.
Secretly, U.S. officials informed on missile defenses were pleased, for two reasons. First, the elaborate U.S. missile defense in place in Japan, Alaska, California, Hawai'i, aboard Navy ships and in satellites was severely tested and worked well. In particular, the fusion of data from sensors based on land, at sea and in space produced swift and clear images of what the missiles were doing.
Second, U.S. intelligence gathered information about the missiles that otherwise could not have been had. An official in Washington said: "We learned an incredible amount about where exactly North Korea is in their long-range missile development program." Because North Korea has only aging radar, he doubted that North Korea "learned anything close to what we learned about their tests."
The officials said North Korea's missiles were fired from mobile launchers, but the U.S. had been able to track them with satellites and reconnaissance aircraft. U-2 surveillance planes flying outside of North Korean airspace, for instance, transmitted digital photographs to be fed into the fused data.
In addition, the North Koreans have become more skilled at disguising launch sites with shields like medieval armor through which radar cannot see. The U.S., however, has found undisclosed ways of piercing that camouflage. U.S. sensors were able to pick up North Korean missiles when they had flight times of only 2 to 11 seconds, indicating either a failed launch or a target close to the launch point.
The missiles were sighted by U.S. radar in northwestern Japan near the remote village of Shariki, then picked up by radar on Shemya in the Aleutian chain of Alaska and another encased in what looks like a giant golf ball aboard a seagoing base in the mid-Pacific. A satellite and an Aegis destroyer on patrol in the Pacific also tracked the missiles.
Missile data were transmitted to a U.S. command center at Yokota Air Base west of Tokyo, where much was shared with Japan's Self-Defense Forces. The data went to operations centers in Hawai'i, Northern Command in Colorado, Strategic Command in Nebraska, the National Military Command Center in the Pentagon, and to the situation room in the White House.
Keeping track of the missiles was made a bit easier when the North Koreans spaced out the launches. Joseph Bermudez, a specialist on North Korean military affairs, wrote in Jane's Intelligence Review that on July 2, the launches of the missiles were 40 minutes to nearly two hours apart. They landed in the sea within 60 miles of shore.
On July 4, the seven missiles were launched, mostly about two hours apart. The trajectories were generally northeast into the Sea of Japan after flights of 270 to 300 miles. All suggested that the North Koreans had improved the accuracy of their missiles.
The only aspect of missile defense not tested was, obviously, taking a shot at a North Korean missile. The system was alerted to shoot if the sensors had shown a long-range missile headed to a target in Japan or the U.S., including Alaska and Hawai'i.
Had Obama given the order to shoot, computers in a fire-control suite in Alaska would have selected interceptors in Alaska, California, or aboard an Aegis ship at sea to shoot at the missiles while in mid-course. As a last resort, an anti-missile missile would have been fired from Hawai'i at the incoming warhead hurtling down from space.
Richard Halloran, formerly a New York Times correspondent in Asia and in Washington, is a writer in Honolulu.
#1
In a year where we blew out the budget on everything, the Dems and Obama cut missile defense after campaigning against 'unproven' technology. Fortunately he was not president the last 8 yrs and his home state benefitted the most from BMD.
There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America's unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won't bring jobs. Our nation's debt is unsustainable, and the federal government's reach into the private sector is unprecedented.
Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:
I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.
American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.
There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy.
Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.
In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.
The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.
The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will "necessarily skyrocket." So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.
Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, "poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity."
We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.
In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.
Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.
We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama's plan will result in the latter.
For so many reasons, we can't afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.
Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?
Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama's energy cap-and-tax plan.
The writer, a Republican, is governor of Alaska.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/14/2009 07:59 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed
Although both the Arabs and the Iranians occupy the same geographical region, and the majority of them are members of the same religion, and they share a thousand years of history, the Iranian experience is different from the Arab one. Before looking at modern-day Iran, and examining what is taking place in Tehran, we should try to understand the special circumstances that affect Iran. Unlike the Arabs who are comprised of various nations and who number more than two hundred million people and are spread over two continents, the Iranians live in a single country, and speak a language that they share with only a few minorities beyond their borders.
Uncivilized Beduin barbarians, all of 'em! No right-minded Persian should imitate anything they do, especially that democracy thingy they've taken up with such enthusiasm in Iraq.
" Unlike the Arabs who are comprised of various nations and who number more than two hundred million people and are spread over two continents, the Iranians live in a single country, and speak a language that they share with only a few minorities beyond their borders "
It is therefore not difficult to understand why for two thousand years Iran has looked westwards to the Arab world and beyond as a way of escaping its single state cage. Expansion was an ambition of the Shah who built up his military arsenal to the point that Iran was recognized as the region's policeman, and had a large say in the issues of the Arab region. These ambitions were revived following the Islamic Revolution but under a different guise, the goal this time was external expansion in order to give Iran a large say in its [own] regional affairs.
The single confrontation between the Arabs and the Iranians took place following the Islamic Revolution when Saddam Hussein believed there was an opportunity for him to extend his own influence. In his ignorance, Saddam Hussein believed that the new rulers in Iran were an easy target, but his greed resulted in Iraq suffering eight years of war. This was [until then] the largest war seen in the region with regards to death-toll and the scale of destruction.
This war, and prior to it, the Iranian revolution, confirmed that the Iranian individual -- perhaps more so than the Arab individual -- is a dangerous prospect when he joins with other individuals and becomes a group. This is what we are seeing today in the streets of Tehran and other Iranian major cities.
The recent events only confirm these differences [between the Iranians and the Arabs], and illustrates the importance of the Iranian public. We must not forgot that the Iranian public was the main catalyst for change against the Shah in the late seventies, and before this in the fifties during the popular uprising led by [former Iranian Prime Minister] Mohamed Mosaddeq against the Shah. This uprising would have been successful were it not for outside interference.
On the other hand, the Arab public -- despite all their talk -- has never initiated any [political] change whatsoever. Even the revolutions that the Arab public is credited to have played a part in, such as the Arab Revolt in the early twentieth century, and the Egyptian Revolution in the mid-twentieth century, had in reality nothing whatsoever to do with the Arabic public.
The role that the Iranian public is playing today is similar to that which it played [during the uprisings] in 1977 and which eventually led to a complete change [in the political system]. The current uprising in Iran may fail and not achieve anything, but whatever the end result, this uprising has distinguished itself as a historic and popular movement, something distinct from the emotional anger seen during the 1977 Egyptian Bread Riots. What is taking place in Tehran is the result of continuous effort since the student protests of ten years ago, and this activism has survived despite the regime's efforts to stamp it out.
Therefore this movement has not stopped despite the regime's violence against the unarmed demonstrators, and its policy of murder and arrest. Despite the security attempts to prevent this and the media blackout, demonstrations have been ongoing. The regime being forced to cut off all mobile phone communication only serves to illustrate the magnitude of these protests. The success of the demonstrators in protesting by religious means, and utilizing mosques for this purpose, also serves to demonstrate that this crisis is a crisis within the governing regime, and is not as a result of Western incitement.
I believe that this crisis that the Iranian regime is facing today is as a result of it facing a different public, a public that is determined and tireless, one that will not back down no matter how it is prevented, suppressed or intimidated. It is a situation that we in the Arab world who rarely attempt to confront and implement change at a grass-roots level find difficult to understand. All the Arab changes have come from the top down, via military coups, from inside palaces, or from abroad.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/14/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[13 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
(a) Very different in the sense of being a lot more likely to build Nukes.
(b) Not so different that they can be trusted with Nukes.
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.
