I am sure a few of my regular readers will disagree with me on this post. But nevertheless, I have to say some things about Libya and the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East.
Before we discuss Obama's usual inept handling of another foreign crisis, there are some inconsistencies we must think about... long before before we draw any intelligent conclusions. As in any case, there are things we know and things we don't. Let's start by looking at what we know.
We know that Obama likes dictators (at least the Latin American versions).
He loves Hugo Chavez. We all know Chavez fits the socialist model that the President was educated to believe in. We all know that Bro. Hugo is the modern-day replacement for Fidel Castro's failed leadership in Latin America, for failing to implement the true communist paradigm in Latin America.
We know that he loved former President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras. You may remember him as the man who tried to illegally modify the Honduran constitution, so he could run for another term... for the purpose of implementing a Chavez style economic and political system. When the Honduran Supreme Court ruled against Zelaya and his underhanded plan of action, both Obama and Chavez did everything they possibly could to subvert the rule of law in that country.
What we do not know is why Obama is not supporting dictators a half a world away in the Middle East.
He did not support Mubarek of Egypt during its recent popular uprising and by all appearances now, he is not supporting Libya's Muammar Gaddaffi in favor of another "so-called" populist uprising.
It's hard to make sense of this approach until we realize that Obama clearly has no consistent values or core principles. Then only thing consistent with Obama is, he will do what is best for Obama, and those who will help him. We do know that those who support Obama's Presidency the most are the people who have in years past advocated for revolution. Bill and Bernice Ayers are two names that prominently stick out, as well as many others.The people I speak of are those who follow the Alinsky model. They never want a crisis to go to waste and if there is no crisis, they can create one.
I firmly believe that at the time of Obama's election, there were unseen forces overblowing the economic crisis at the time, for the specific purpose of getting the man elected. Not that everything was hunky dory mind you, it was a downturn that was bound to happen and not be denied. But these forces used a complicit media (who merely wanted to see history made in the form of electing a black man as president) and all other means within their reach to drive the frenzy of what was then described as a looming depression never before seen. They made a bad situation even worse.
But to be fair about it, this goal and objective was set by forces much larger than Obama. I say this because as we see today, Obama is an extremely ineffective leader at almost every level. Instead of focusing on important things like the Japanese crisis, the Middle East, and important domestic issues, he plays golf, he fills out brackets, and he tours Latin America to create diversions from his incompetence as a leader.
In short, he doesn.t know how to manage a Burger King, much less a country. He is only a prop and a poor one, at that.
But back to Libya, and let me be blunt.
Obama and Soros Inc. want instability in the Middle East for the purpose of replacing the U.S. Dollar as the primary oil trading currency. Soros makes his money by getting currencies devalued, so it stands to reason that he may be hedging his bets on a new currency for the specific purpose of buying and selling oil. (Maybe if he is successful, we can call it the Soro. But I digress.)
So instability is their friend right now. Nothing can cause more willingness to change what has always been, except turmoil and fiercely uncertain conditions in such an important commodity. But as with every diabolical and contrived plot, there are strong possibilities of unintended consequences, which are not being thought about right now in the midst of this mess.
We are signing on to support the "so-called" pro-democracy forces in these nations where tyranny has reigned for so many years. But in the middle of this, we are failing to remember the Iranian Revolution.... whereby one form of tyranny was replaced with another.We are risking all of this for one man who had billions already, to stand the chance of making even more.
We are forgetting that groups that are supportive of al-Qaida (and the dangerous anti-freedom message of Muslim imperialism) is playing a huge role in these demonstrations. What makes us think that al Qaida will make a better form of government than the low-life tyrant we know as Gaddaffi?
Even more troubling is the liberal school of thought, that opportunistically used the Iraq War as political fodder against the GOP and George W. Bush, Now that Obama is President, they are magically supportive of a regime change in Libya and openly for these Sharia Law loving rebels taking control of the oil supply, in the Middle East. And Obama falls directly into this category. He and his Leftist friends questioned the use of military force to effect a regime change in a sovereign nation back then, But now it's okay.
In Iraq, we have spent much time in country and we sacrificed many American lives to see that these groups did not take control of Iraq. How is it that we can be assured this will not happen with no ground troops in Libya?
So to my friends who regularly read this sleepy little blog, I must ask you to think about some things in the closing of this post.
These people have never been able to handle freedom in the past. They seem to need authoritarian leadership of some kind or another. They are not doing well under dictators, but how well will they fare under the tyranny of forces that subscribe to harsh medieval conditions? Will they allow for free elections? I doubt it. Will they allow freedom of speech? Nope. Will they use their oil producing capabilities as weapons? You know they will. And they will use whatever profits they can make, to destroy all those who are not willing to submit to Allah (starting with Israel).
How will it affect other Middle East nations? Will Saudi Arabia fall next with encouragement and military help from the civilized world? Polls show that Osama bin Laden could win an election there, if there were elections. Would that be worth ridding that nation of the monarch whose hand was kissed by President Obama?
Most importantly of all let's think about one more thing. Knowing how ungrateful many people in the Arab world have been concerning the huge toll on American blood spilled to make Iraq free from a brutal dictator, do we really think Libyans will appreciate any effort the U.S. or its allies will put forth?
Personally, I think Gaddaffi is a thug, a creep, and a terrorist responsible for the killing of many of my countrymen. I think he deserves to be dropped into a pit full of hungry crocodiles. But I am not sure he is worth spilling any American blood over, especially when the Libyan people will very likely not appreciate any of it.
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Gaza Aid: Enter The Bottomless Money Pit
From the "how much more insane can it get" department, comes this story:
Close to one billion dollars will be leaving a strapped economy and a government that hasn't got an ounce of brains, all because Hamas launched attacks from Gaza and Israel took them out. Anyone with a dimwit's intelligence can easily see it will be another colossal waste of money, because this fragile cease fire is not going to last.
Already today, it is being reported that Hamas has launched another rocket attack into Israel. So can anyone tell me just how wise this expenditure is going to prove to be, if we throw this money away and Israel ends up blowing it all up again?
Besides the fiscal irresponsibility angle of this idiotic move, who really believes this is going to make these people like us? Let's see a show of hands.
The French have pretty much worked as hard as anyone trying to kiss the Muslim nations' derrieres and they are not given any special treatment when their citizens visit one of those countries. Evidence to this claim can be found here in this story.
Terrorists do not see Western nations as anything but an enemy and certainly are not willing to award any special treatment because any of them are willing to appease and understand their violent demands. So it stands to good reason that $900 million will not have any effect on the average citizen's opinion about America.
Frankly, it will be be seen as compensation for supporting the evil Jews, and will only open the door for demanding/expecting more in the future. The money pit in this case is a bottomless one, because the beast that lives in it will get hungrier and will need to be fed more as times goes on.
Just enter this as dumbass move # 136, by the Obama Administration. One month down, 47 more to go.
United States aid for the Gaza Strip's reconstruction will likely top $900 million, an official said, as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton prepared to make her first Mideast trip as America's top diplomat.
Israeli and Palestinian officials said Monday that Clinton will visit Israel and the West Bank during the first week of March. Clinton said during her Asia trip last week that she would attend an international donors conference in Egypt on March 2 to discuss reconstruction in Gaza.
She provided no other details, but a U.S. official in the United States said Monday that the Obama administration's donation will be at least $900 million in humanitarian and rebuilding aid to the Palestinian Authority to help Gaza recover from Israel's offensive against Hamas last month.
Close to one billion dollars will be leaving a strapped economy and a government that hasn't got an ounce of brains, all because Hamas launched attacks from Gaza and Israel took them out. Anyone with a dimwit's intelligence can easily see it will be another colossal waste of money, because this fragile cease fire is not going to last.
Already today, it is being reported that Hamas has launched another rocket attack into Israel. So can anyone tell me just how wise this expenditure is going to prove to be, if we throw this money away and Israel ends up blowing it all up again?
Besides the fiscal irresponsibility angle of this idiotic move, who really believes this is going to make these people like us? Let's see a show of hands.
The French have pretty much worked as hard as anyone trying to kiss the Muslim nations' derrieres and they are not given any special treatment when their citizens visit one of those countries. Evidence to this claim can be found here in this story.
The French teenagers had finished a day touring Cairo's 650-year-old Khan el-Khalili bazaar, gathering in its main square to board a bus back to their hotel. Then the blast went off.
The explosion killed a 17-year-old girl with the group and wounded 24 other people, most of them fellow students. According to the government account released Monday, a bomb had been planted underneath a stone bench on which the girl was sitting.
The Sunday night blast was the first attack in three years targeting foreigners in Egypt, and it raised fears of a blow to the country's vital tourism industry, which is already suffering from the global economic downturn.
The attack shocked the Paris suburb of Levallois-Perret, hometown of the more than 40 high school students who were on a tour of Egypt. "We are faced with a dreadful drama," the suburb's mayor Patrick Balkany told France's RTL radio on Monday.
Terrorists do not see Western nations as anything but an enemy and certainly are not willing to award any special treatment because any of them are willing to appease and understand their violent demands. So it stands to good reason that $900 million will not have any effect on the average citizen's opinion about America.
Frankly, it will be be seen as compensation for supporting the evil Jews, and will only open the door for demanding/expecting more in the future. The money pit in this case is a bottomless one, because the beast that lives in it will get hungrier and will need to be fed more as times goes on.
Just enter this as dumbass move # 136, by the Obama Administration. One month down, 47 more to go.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Typical Responses
This Gary Varvel cartoon was published earlier this past week in the Indianapolis Star. While it is a humorous take on the events that are taking place at this time in Gaza, it speaks the truth of the situation.
Most that read this blog have no trouble seeing this for what it is. But there are many out there in la-la land, who see this as unprovoked Israeli aggression and are calling for it to stop. They do not take into account that Hamas has no desire for peace. They do not consider the fact that all Hamas had to do to prevent this reaction was to stop firing rockets into Israel.
This has the EU divided.
Sarkozy is condemning the Israeli response, which is what you would expect a French President to do (because it is tradition). But surprisingly enough, the Czechs are calling it what it is, defensive. And as you would guess, there are some vocal critics from the entertainment community calling for the end of hostilities.
London - Singer Annie Lennox and other celebrities are calling on Israel to stop its air attacks on the Gaza Strip.
Lennox said violence could never be a solution to conflict.
My questions to Ms. Lennox:
- Where the hell are you when the rockets are flying out from Gaza?
- Where are you when the rockets get dangerously close to nuclear facilities, threatening the entire region?
- Why is that you and others in your business are blind to the decades-old aggression of Hamas, but open to Israel's actions to defend itself?
But that's not all.
The ex-Eurythmics singer attended a press conference in London on Friday alongside activist Bianca Jagger, comedian Alexei Sayle and politicians including former London mayor Ken Livingstone.
Jagger called on President-elect Barack Obama to condemn the Israeli air strikes. Israel says it is responding to rockets fired from Gaza by the Hamas militant group.
Nice try Bianca, but Obama isn't President yet. Even he realizes it and is respectful of that fact.
"The president-elect is closely monitoring global events, including the situation in Gaza," his national security spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said in a statement after the ground assault got underway.
But she offered no further comment on the violence in Gaza and used a phrase repeated often by Obama and his aides: "There is one president at a time and we intend to respect that."
Senior advisor David Axelrod said Sunday that Obama is "committed" to achieving peace in the Middle East, in the only extended comments from the president-elect's team so far.
"Obviously, this situation has become even more complicated in the last couple of days and weeks... But it's something that he's committed to," Axelrod told CBS television.
Obama transition team officials told AFP the president-elect would not comment publicly in the coming days on the Gaza offensive, and the future president will likely keep silent on the issue until his January 20 inauguration.
As we read on, we see this silence is not sitting well with some people.
His muted response has already drawn the anger of some in the Middle East.
"The start is not good," said Khaled Meshaal, leader of the Hamas Islamist movement that has ruled Gaza since June 2007.
"You commented on Mumbai but you say nothing about the crime of the enemy (Israel). This policy of double standards should stop."
I can understand Meshaal's frustration. Hamas contributed to Obama's Presidential campaign and now they want a return on their investment. But it all leads back to the basis for all of this, which is the rocket attacks.
All it would take is a strongly worded statement which commits to halting them, and then actually living by that commitment. But keeping agreements is not part of the Hamas legacy and it never will be, as long as their charter calls for the destruction of their neighbor. So, why is anyone surprised when that neighbor wants to take out the infrastructure that is being used to advance violence against their civilization?
The same people have no trouble condemning Hitler's attempt to rid the world of Jews, but seem to lack the courage to condemn Arabs who want the nation of Israel eradicated.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Question For A Sunday
Let's set the stage with this story.
Nothing new here, let's read on:
Now, the question becomes this:
Did the Iranian athlete pull out because of his deep sincere belief in the Palestinian cause or was he merely afraid to place behind the Israeli athlete, knowing the retribution he would face when he returned home?
An Iranian swimmer pulled out of the Olympic Games men's 100m breaststroke heats on Saturday, just minutes before he was due to compete against an Israeli rival.
Mohammad Alirezaei's lane one was empty when the field left the starting blocks while Israel's Tom Beeri, starting in lane seven, finished fourth.
Nothing new here, let's read on:
During the 2004 Athens Olympics, Iran's judo world champion Arash Miresmaeili, one of the country's prominent gold medal hopes, refused to compete against Ehud Vaks of Israel in the first round out of solidarity for the Palestinian cause.
Miresmaeili, twice a winner of the flyweight world title, still received a 5,000-dollar award the Iranian National Olympic Committee had promised to medal winners and he was hailed by former President Mohammad Khatami for his stance.
Now, the question becomes this:
Did the Iranian athlete pull out because of his deep sincere belief in the Palestinian cause or was he merely afraid to place behind the Israeli athlete, knowing the retribution he would face when he returned home?
Thursday, July 31, 2008
The Possibilities Of A Stable Iraq
Having turned a major corner in Iraq, there are some real possibilities for the future of the Middle East. Sure, the setbacks were not always pleasant to hear about. Yes, there have been times I had my doubts on positive outcomes.
But overall pessimism has been replaced by optimism, thanks to Gen. Petraeus and the surge that many said would not work. This is the surge that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi once said would not, could not, and was not working. This is the one that Obama said he wouldn't support even now in the face of success.
This does not mean that all is won of course. But for some intelligent expostulation, VDH's weekly column examines the real possibilities of a stable constitutional Iraq can have on the region (with some considerable caveats, as well).
But overall pessimism has been replaced by optimism, thanks to Gen. Petraeus and the surge that many said would not work. This is the surge that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi once said would not, could not, and was not working. This is the one that Obama said he wouldn't support even now in the face of success.
This does not mean that all is won of course. But for some intelligent expostulation, VDH's weekly column examines the real possibilities of a stable constitutional Iraq can have on the region (with some considerable caveats, as well).
Friday, April 25, 2008
Carter's Attention Seeking Behavior
There is an excellent article from the WSJ about Carter's recent meetings with Hamas. It even notes that Barack Obama has taken a stand opposite of the former President.
It's not that he met with them so much as it is, the total picture that Carter has painted of Israel in his later years. He has demonized that nation and beatified it's sworn enemy, with this latest folly being the"mother of all screw-ups" ever committed by an ex-president.
Check it out, when you get time.
It's not that he met with them so much as it is, the total picture that Carter has painted of Israel in his later years. He has demonized that nation and beatified it's sworn enemy, with this latest folly being the"mother of all screw-ups" ever committed by an ex-president.
Check it out, when you get time.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Jimmy Carter May Meet With Hamas Leader
It has been announced that former President Jimmy Carter is planning to visit Syria next week. Well-known Democrats visiting a rogue state that sponsors terrorism is nothing new. Just review the passports of Nancy Pelosi and Jesse Jackson.
But if visiting a state that sponsors people who kill innocents for political purposes is not enough to provoke disdain, consider this disturbing thought. While Mr. Carter is in-country, he has also plans to visit with Hamas leader, Khaled Meshaal.
As you may guess, the State Department is not pleased with this idea.
As you may guess, left-wing Carterphiles are not usually overly concerned about what the Administration wants (as they rarely are on a variety of issues). During the course, one must expect this type of hostile defiance from those that do not like the current President. But this issue may have far-reaching consequences for the presumed Democratic nominee, Barack Obama.
With Obama already in some controversy for suggesting talks with Iran (with no set pre-conditions), this would really weaken an Obama candidacy in the area of foreign relations, especially with independent moderate voters that tend to think rationally. People like Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers would probable give it two thumbs up and would receive Mr. Carter with a hero's welcome, after his return. But people who have the ability to think critically and analyze things with an open mind will not be impressed.
Because this may do some serious political damage to Obama's campaign, it is being reported that Obama's camp is not really to keen to this idea. From the same MSNBC article comes this update:
Whether it's a sincere disagreement or a proactive political ploy to prevent an enormous amount of future damage control, it is the right thing to do. In fact, if Democrats are really smart, they would isolate Mr. Carter on the fringe - where he has conducted much of his ex-presidential legacy building, over the past few years. Whatever legacy he has left is now being neutralized by his statements, behaviors, and actions over this latest round of ideological blunders and missteps.
In the grand scheme of things, it just further illustrates the claim that the Democratic Party is impetuous and growing more reckless as time goes on. There is no consistency, there is no vision, except to undo anything that has be done in the battle against worldwide terrorism just to undermine the current President.
Furthermore, it solidifies my belief that JFK and FDR are currently rolling over in their graves. Even LBJ would have never dreamed of making such a foolish and subversive gesture, which now places him way above Jimmy Carter on the PYY favorability scale.
But if visiting a state that sponsors people who kill innocents for political purposes is not enough to provoke disdain, consider this disturbing thought. While Mr. Carter is in-country, he has also plans to visit with Hamas leader, Khaled Meshaal.
As you may guess, the State Department is not pleased with this idea.
The Bush administration has urged former President Jimmy Carter not to go forward with plans to meet with the leader of Hamas, the U.S. State Department said Thursday.
As you may guess, left-wing Carterphiles are not usually overly concerned about what the Administration wants (as they rarely are on a variety of issues). During the course, one must expect this type of hostile defiance from those that do not like the current President. But this issue may have far-reaching consequences for the presumed Democratic nominee, Barack Obama.
Carter's decision to meet with Hamas could have blowback for Obama. In Nigeria last week, Carter signaled his support for Obama, without officially endorsing him. Asked about that, sources close to both Obama and Carter told NBC NEWS that they are ducking a formal endorsement to avoid alienating Jewish voters critical of the former president's Middle East policies. Carter is a superdelegate and has long had rocky relations with the Clintons.
With Obama already in some controversy for suggesting talks with Iran (with no set pre-conditions), this would really weaken an Obama candidacy in the area of foreign relations, especially with independent moderate voters that tend to think rationally. People like Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers would probable give it two thumbs up and would receive Mr. Carter with a hero's welcome, after his return. But people who have the ability to think critically and analyze things with an open mind will not be impressed.
Because this may do some serious political damage to Obama's campaign, it is being reported that Obama's camp is not really to keen to this idea. From the same MSNBC article comes this update:
The Obama campaign provided NBC with a statement it released yesterday. "Senator Obama does not agree with President Carter's decision to go forward with this meeting because he does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. As President, Obama will negotiate directly with the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas."
Whether it's a sincere disagreement or a proactive political ploy to prevent an enormous amount of future damage control, it is the right thing to do. In fact, if Democrats are really smart, they would isolate Mr. Carter on the fringe - where he has conducted much of his ex-presidential legacy building, over the past few years. Whatever legacy he has left is now being neutralized by his statements, behaviors, and actions over this latest round of ideological blunders and missteps.
In the grand scheme of things, it just further illustrates the claim that the Democratic Party is impetuous and growing more reckless as time goes on. There is no consistency, there is no vision, except to undo anything that has be done in the battle against worldwide terrorism just to undermine the current President.
Furthermore, it solidifies my belief that JFK and FDR are currently rolling over in their graves. Even LBJ would have never dreamed of making such a foolish and subversive gesture, which now places him way above Jimmy Carter on the PYY favorability scale.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Recommended Reading
Andrew Greeley has written some concerns about the Democratic Party and its current location, which is lodged somewhere between a rock and a hard place.
Reading on, you will find his reasoning to be with some (if not much) merit. When special interest is pitted against another special interest or a traditional minority against another, one of them will lose. Neither one will be happy and may simply take their ball and go home.
The NY Times has a way of stirring the pot these days, as is evidenced by their further wedging of the race issue in the Democratic race.
The recent performance by the Times is well-known as they struggle for some kind of relevance, in a market that is watching them destroy what little reputation they have left. First, there was an attack on John McCain that was unsubstantiated. Now, there is the exploitation of Geraldine Ferraro and the spin on her recent comments about Barack Obama.
The Democrats, with help from the media, are headed for certain disaster; and they are going to need a miracle to unite this party after the convention, if they don't stop playing the cards they are currently playing.
Once again, Victor Davis Hanson has another column that resonates truth, logic, and rational thought. Be sure to give it a read when you get a moment.
As an aside, I will be doing some home improvement projects the next few days, so posting may be light. But do check in, as I will do what I can, with what time I will have. And as always, many thanks to all that read this blog.
Once again the Democrats seem determined to steal defeat from the jaws of victory.
Reading on, you will find his reasoning to be with some (if not much) merit. When special interest is pitted against another special interest or a traditional minority against another, one of them will lose. Neither one will be happy and may simply take their ball and go home.
The NY Times has a way of stirring the pot these days, as is evidenced by their further wedging of the race issue in the Democratic race.
The recent performance by the Times is well-known as they struggle for some kind of relevance, in a market that is watching them destroy what little reputation they have left. First, there was an attack on John McCain that was unsubstantiated. Now, there is the exploitation of Geraldine Ferraro and the spin on her recent comments about Barack Obama.
The Democrats, with help from the media, are headed for certain disaster; and they are going to need a miracle to unite this party after the convention, if they don't stop playing the cards they are currently playing.
Once again, Victor Davis Hanson has another column that resonates truth, logic, and rational thought. Be sure to give it a read when you get a moment.
As an aside, I will be doing some home improvement projects the next few days, so posting may be light. But do check in, as I will do what I can, with what time I will have. And as always, many thanks to all that read this blog.
Friday, December 28, 2007
The Role Of The Media: The Bhutto Assassination
Unless one has been in a cave the last 24 hours, we have all heard of the sad and tragic news of former Prime Minister Bhutto's demise. In light of this event, I will say it is not unexpected. Since her return to Pakistan, there has been an uneasiness and a certain level of trepidation that she was going to be killed, at some point. I felt it, many of you may have felt it, and I am sure she felt it.
During the coming days, there will be every accusation and theory as to who the responsible party is. Some of those have already surfaced. Musharraf, al Qaeda, the Taliban, will all be mentioned by the expert pundits, who will be paraded out on the news networks in the coming days (as many already have). And if you listen hard enough, search the internet long enough, you may even find someone on the fringe accuse the CIA and/or the Mossad.
The truth is, we don't know who was behind it. Almost all of those I have mentioned had a vested interest in seeing her assassinated. Their objective was two-fold: Eliminate her and create a state of chaos that will result in long-term instability in Pakistan. On these counts, both goals appear to have been met.
An even sadder truth remains, in that, we may never know the real truth. This situation is extremely complex ans murky, at best. And to think that any investigation or claim of responsibility will immediately be credible, demonstrates a naive thinking process and in some cases delusional thinking.
In the meantime, the thought of Bhutto returning to power has been set forth as an idealistic mantra and panacea that (at best) can be categorized as the same. The media has painted this picture of hope and vision, all the while it has been draped in error and miscalculation.
The build-up to her return and the possibilities it created was entirely fueled by the same media that tells us all that our soldiers are on killing rampages, targeting innocent civilians in Iraq. These are the same people who lend credibility to the thinking that the War On Terror is a bumper sticker phrase and to reporters that sit in their hotel rooms paying locals for slanted and biased accounts of events, they are too scared to cover in person.
The truth is, this woman was painted to be a saviour of sorts to her country, while ignoring how ineffective and corrupt she was while she was in power. There were elements that hated her then (and drove her out). Today, we can see there are still many that hated what she stood for, and would benefit from her death.
With all of this known, it astounds me how the media could paint her return as some bright shining moment, in the quest for the return of democracy in Pakistan. Yet, they did. I guess they wanted a story, and they got it.
So, as the expostulations and pontifications from the experts flow out of the interviews and the roundtable discussions, remember that this is not as easy to sort out, as they want us to believe. All will get their faces on TV, voices on radio, and names in the newspapers. But, Bhutto gets a funeral and the people of Pakistan get uncertainty and chaos.
Note - Here are some other views starting to emerge:
1. An excellent essay in the NT Post today about the facade of Bhutto.
2. Which goes along well, with some of what Mustang is saying in his latest post.
3. AC of Fore Left has some thoughts, some of which may differ from mine. But still, they are worth considering.
4. Interesting food for thought here at Q and O.
During the coming days, there will be every accusation and theory as to who the responsible party is. Some of those have already surfaced. Musharraf, al Qaeda, the Taliban, will all be mentioned by the expert pundits, who will be paraded out on the news networks in the coming days (as many already have). And if you listen hard enough, search the internet long enough, you may even find someone on the fringe accuse the CIA and/or the Mossad.
The truth is, we don't know who was behind it. Almost all of those I have mentioned had a vested interest in seeing her assassinated. Their objective was two-fold: Eliminate her and create a state of chaos that will result in long-term instability in Pakistan. On these counts, both goals appear to have been met.
An even sadder truth remains, in that, we may never know the real truth. This situation is extremely complex ans murky, at best. And to think that any investigation or claim of responsibility will immediately be credible, demonstrates a naive thinking process and in some cases delusional thinking.
In the meantime, the thought of Bhutto returning to power has been set forth as an idealistic mantra and panacea that (at best) can be categorized as the same. The media has painted this picture of hope and vision, all the while it has been draped in error and miscalculation.
The build-up to her return and the possibilities it created was entirely fueled by the same media that tells us all that our soldiers are on killing rampages, targeting innocent civilians in Iraq. These are the same people who lend credibility to the thinking that the War On Terror is a bumper sticker phrase and to reporters that sit in their hotel rooms paying locals for slanted and biased accounts of events, they are too scared to cover in person.
The truth is, this woman was painted to be a saviour of sorts to her country, while ignoring how ineffective and corrupt she was while she was in power. There were elements that hated her then (and drove her out). Today, we can see there are still many that hated what she stood for, and would benefit from her death.
With all of this known, it astounds me how the media could paint her return as some bright shining moment, in the quest for the return of democracy in Pakistan. Yet, they did. I guess they wanted a story, and they got it.
So, as the expostulations and pontifications from the experts flow out of the interviews and the roundtable discussions, remember that this is not as easy to sort out, as they want us to believe. All will get their faces on TV, voices on radio, and names in the newspapers. But, Bhutto gets a funeral and the people of Pakistan get uncertainty and chaos.
Note - Here are some other views starting to emerge:
1. An excellent essay in the NT Post today about the facade of Bhutto.
2. Which goes along well, with some of what Mustang is saying in his latest post.
3. AC of Fore Left has some thoughts, some of which may differ from mine. But still, they are worth considering.
4. Interesting food for thought here at Q and O.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Iran Proposes Alternative To Annapolis
In a move that is not at all surprising, the Iranian government has proposed an alternate meeting.
From this opening statement in this very short article, most intelligent people can effectively surmise that the meeting Iran is proposing will not have peace as a long-term objective.
Translation: These groups are planning to come to Tehran within the next week or two and they are all the Palestinian groups that are struggling to destroy Israel.
In other words:
The strip of land in question (which was once barren and fruitless before 1948) belongs to the Palestinian people and there is no process or deal that is acceptable, short of all Jews vacating it permanently, so that the Palestinian militant groups can turn it back into a barren and fruitless war zone, once again.
As much as I would like to applaud the efforts of the Annapolis conference, I cannot get very optimistic. As long as the current government in Iran is in power, there will be no peace in the Middle East. Pledging millions of dollars in 2006 is nothing new. Ask them about the billions that have been pumped into Hezbollah and others, since the regime was installed in 1979.
As long as oil is a necessary commodity throughout the world, these people will have funding for terror operations. As long as states such as Iran and Saudi Arabia use their huge oil revenues to finance this hatred, it will not go away anytime soon.
Iran said on Tuesday that it had invited Palestinian militant factions to a meeting in Tehran aimed at countering a US-hosted Middle East peace conference seeking to kickstart the peace process.
From this opening statement in this very short article, most intelligent people can effectively surmise that the meeting Iran is proposing will not have peace as a long-term objective.
"These groups are planning to come to Tehran within the next week or two and they are all the Palestinian groups that are struggling for the freedom of their land," government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters.
Translation: These groups are planning to come to Tehran within the next week or two and they are all the Palestinian groups that are struggling to destroy Israel.
In other words:
The strip of land in question (which was once barren and fruitless before 1948) belongs to the Palestinian people and there is no process or deal that is acceptable, short of all Jews vacating it permanently, so that the Palestinian militant groups can turn it back into a barren and fruitless war zone, once again.
Iran is one of the most vocal backers of Palestinian militant groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad and pledged millions of dollars in 2006 to the then Hamas government crippled by a Western aid cut.
The Islamic republic does not recognise Israel and its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has provoked outrage by calling for the Jewish state to be wiped off the map.
As much as I would like to applaud the efforts of the Annapolis conference, I cannot get very optimistic. As long as the current government in Iran is in power, there will be no peace in the Middle East. Pledging millions of dollars in 2006 is nothing new. Ask them about the billions that have been pumped into Hezbollah and others, since the regime was installed in 1979.
As long as oil is a necessary commodity throughout the world, these people will have funding for terror operations. As long as states such as Iran and Saudi Arabia use their huge oil revenues to finance this hatred, it will not go away anytime soon.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Ask LA
Hi. I am LA Sunsett. Many know me as, LA.
Once upon a time, there was a blogger named Nickie Goomba, who sadly passed away awhile back. He had an occasional segment called Ask Maria (his wife), where she would give advice to readers that needed help solving some difficult problems they faced.
Nickie is gone, the blog is gone, and to the best of my knowledge, Maria is not helping people anymore. So, to fill the terrible void, I am stepping up to the plate, offering my services to people desperately need help with some of the problems they face in the world today.
Here is the very first installment of Ask LA:
Dear LA,
I am so hurt and confused and do not know what I should do. I feel so betrayed by those that I have felt close to for a long time. They say one thing to my face and when my back is turned, they stick a knife in it. They tell me how they support me in my daily struggles, yet when my back is turned, they openly subvert my causes by befriending those that are my enemies.
Just the other day my friend Syria led me to believe they thought a meeting in Annapolis was not going to benefit me and wanted no part of it. But, again, when my back is turned and least expected it, I saw their delegation on the news disembarking from an airplane at Andrews AFB. The news people said that they had not been expected to attend, but surprised everyone by showing up anyway.
Please help me, LA. I am at my wit's end. What should I do?
Sincerely,
Hamas
Dear Hamas,
It's tough when friends do this to you and believe me, I know how you must be hurting over this. But you must understand that this is not your fault. You are the victim and you need to act like it.
The first thing you must do is, lob a few rockets into Israel and try to kill some innocent people. Everyone knows that Israel and the imperialist United States are purposely trying to alienate your friend Syria from you.
When that is done, you might want to execute a few people from the Fatah organization, as they are working against you too. They are conspiring with Israel and the U.S. to hurt you. Issuing some strongly worded threats might not hurt, either.
But whatever you do, do not look inward towards yourself to find the answers. Like I said, none of this is your fault. You have the perfect right to blame all of your hardships on Israel and the U.S., as they are infidels and rats. You have the right to do whatever makes you happy and damn those that have taken issue with your feelings, your suicide bombings, and your deliberate killings of innocent people (to include children).
This within itself, will not be enough to complete the healing process. But it is a good start. Seek professional help as soon as you can, I recommend a good Iranian therapist.
Best of luck,
LA
Once upon a time, there was a blogger named Nickie Goomba, who sadly passed away awhile back. He had an occasional segment called Ask Maria (his wife), where she would give advice to readers that needed help solving some difficult problems they faced.
Nickie is gone, the blog is gone, and to the best of my knowledge, Maria is not helping people anymore. So, to fill the terrible void, I am stepping up to the plate, offering my services to people desperately need help with some of the problems they face in the world today.
Here is the very first installment of Ask LA:
Dear LA,
I am so hurt and confused and do not know what I should do. I feel so betrayed by those that I have felt close to for a long time. They say one thing to my face and when my back is turned, they stick a knife in it. They tell me how they support me in my daily struggles, yet when my back is turned, they openly subvert my causes by befriending those that are my enemies.
Just the other day my friend Syria led me to believe they thought a meeting in Annapolis was not going to benefit me and wanted no part of it. But, again, when my back is turned and least expected it, I saw their delegation on the news disembarking from an airplane at Andrews AFB. The news people said that they had not been expected to attend, but surprised everyone by showing up anyway.
Please help me, LA. I am at my wit's end. What should I do?
Sincerely,
Hamas
Dear Hamas,
It's tough when friends do this to you and believe me, I know how you must be hurting over this. But you must understand that this is not your fault. You are the victim and you need to act like it.
The first thing you must do is, lob a few rockets into Israel and try to kill some innocent people. Everyone knows that Israel and the imperialist United States are purposely trying to alienate your friend Syria from you.
When that is done, you might want to execute a few people from the Fatah organization, as they are working against you too. They are conspiring with Israel and the U.S. to hurt you. Issuing some strongly worded threats might not hurt, either.
But whatever you do, do not look inward towards yourself to find the answers. Like I said, none of this is your fault. You have the perfect right to blame all of your hardships on Israel and the U.S., as they are infidels and rats. You have the right to do whatever makes you happy and damn those that have taken issue with your feelings, your suicide bombings, and your deliberate killings of innocent people (to include children).
This within itself, will not be enough to complete the healing process. But it is a good start. Seek professional help as soon as you can, I recommend a good Iranian therapist.
Best of luck,
LA
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Gaza Uber Alles
As a follow-up to my rant on the Saudis and their policies toward their brethren in Gaza, here's a singing group that you may have missed along the way, courtesy of the Hamas organization.
For a listen as to what the musical and performing arts are like in Gaza, and of course that crazy Hamas sound, you can click here.
Wearing blue camouflage fatigues and crooning about Islamic holy war, the five members of Hamas's Protectors of the Homeland police band are trying to boost morale in Gaza with an arsenal of anti-Israel numbers.
For a listen as to what the musical and performing arts are like in Gaza, and of course that crazy Hamas sound, you can click here.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
The Saudi High Life
Here is an interesting story. It's not too surprising when you think about it.
Instead of funding schools that teach kids that Israel and the U.S. are responsible for the sufferings of the Palestinian people, you'd think they could build schools that teach kids how to control their own destiny, feed kids, and create jobs with ventures that employ the people that live in Gaza and the West Bank.
But no. They would rather use every bit of oil revenue on the countless palaces, jet liners, and other extravagant purchases, while their brethren suffer.
Now, I am no socialist by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I pretty much loathe it. But, they are so far ahead of people they claim to have a kinship with and yet they do not invest their vast surplus into real people with real lives. What little money is given, quickly ends up in terrorist hands, because of the network they were able to build (because the area has been kept so impoverished).
I would think all of the good socialists of the world would be appalled at this. If they are, it rarely gets said. But, just let something happen in Gaza or the West Bank and we'll all hear our share of how it's America's and Israel's policies that make these people hate us so much. Never mind that Saudi Arabia's royal family is living the high life and using passive techniques to withhold aid from people, in order to oppress them.
In the annals of excess, it could be a new high: a more than $300 million dollar, super-sized luxury airplane, bought and outfitted solely for the private comfort of a Saudi Arabian billionaire.
Instead of funding schools that teach kids that Israel and the U.S. are responsible for the sufferings of the Palestinian people, you'd think they could build schools that teach kids how to control their own destiny, feed kids, and create jobs with ventures that employ the people that live in Gaza and the West Bank.
But no. They would rather use every bit of oil revenue on the countless palaces, jet liners, and other extravagant purchases, while their brethren suffer.
Now, I am no socialist by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I pretty much loathe it. But, they are so far ahead of people they claim to have a kinship with and yet they do not invest their vast surplus into real people with real lives. What little money is given, quickly ends up in terrorist hands, because of the network they were able to build (because the area has been kept so impoverished).
I would think all of the good socialists of the world would be appalled at this. If they are, it rarely gets said. But, just let something happen in Gaza or the West Bank and we'll all hear our share of how it's America's and Israel's policies that make these people hate us so much. Never mind that Saudi Arabia's royal family is living the high life and using passive techniques to withhold aid from people, in order to oppress them.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
A Short History Of Israeli- Palestinian Conflict
It's something all should read, especially if you don't know the history. It's also good to read, if you do.
As usual, Mustang outdoes himself, read it here.
As usual, Mustang outdoes himself, read it here.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Rally Behind Gore?
Don't laugh. Because as silly as Gore's arguments are, they may have some merit based on one very important angle.
Mustang has a way of making me think and in his latest post, he does just that. Whether he meant to or not, he jarred something in my brain that hadn't been stirred up previously. And this thought involves Gore and his quest to revolutionize the energy industry, for the wrong reasons.
Mustang's post has to do with a broad topic, but one of the points deals with the homage our government pays to the Saudis. Here was my comment:
Marketing is everything and so is outcome. Who cares if he wins or or not, as long as the outcome is favorable for us, right?
Gore gets his agendas ( withdraw from the war and elimination of carbon based fuels in this country) and we get ours (elimination of dependency on foreign oil). We all can then say with one loud proud voice: Eat your oil, Mr. Saudi. Take your oil and refine it into salad oil if you wish, we do not need it.
I know it's all a delusion. But it's my delusion, and I like it.
Mustang has a way of making me think and in his latest post, he does just that. Whether he meant to or not, he jarred something in my brain that hadn't been stirred up previously. And this thought involves Gore and his quest to revolutionize the energy industry, for the wrong reasons.
Mustang's post has to do with a broad topic, but one of the points deals with the homage our government pays to the Saudis. Here was my comment:
You know, if Al Gore was as smart as he thinks he is, he'd forget about this "carbon footprint" and "man causing global warming" crap. If he really wanted to push for hybrids and alternatives to carbon based fuels, he'd present the secondary gains as the primary.
He should sell it under the, "shed the nation's dependency on Middle East oil" banner. Because that's the only way we will ever be able to stop sucking up to the Saudis.
What a day that would be, when we could tell the entire Middle East where they can stuff their oil. Then all of the threat of the Euro replacing the Dollar as the oil currency can become a reality. With that, the U.S. can pull out of the ME and let China , Russia, India, and even Europe fight over it.
If this were to happen, it'd weaken everyone while we could re-tool with our newly discovered energy source that everyone would want to buy. In turn, this would strengthen us.
Think about it. It could cure (ahem) global warming and stop the war, all in one play. Nothing like killing two liberal agendas with one stone, right?
I am sure that I can file this under fantination, which is best defined as, a cross between a fantasy and a a hallucination. This falls somewhere in the area of what I would do if I won this $56 million Hoosier Lottery prize. But it's to fun to think about it.
Marketing is everything and so is outcome. Who cares if he wins or or not, as long as the outcome is favorable for us, right?
Gore gets his agendas ( withdraw from the war and elimination of carbon based fuels in this country) and we get ours (elimination of dependency on foreign oil). We all can then say with one loud proud voice: Eat your oil, Mr. Saudi. Take your oil and refine it into salad oil if you wish, we do not need it.
I know it's all a delusion. But it's my delusion, and I like it.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Turkey: Military Option Against PKK On The Table
Something on the rise these days (that doesn't get a lot of press) is the tension level between Turkey and the autonomous region, currently administered by the Kurds in Iraq. Reports earlier this year told a story of the Turks militarizing the areas just outside the Iraqi border.
In this post here, I posed a simple question , but at the time it was not answerable.
Well, I have. And today we see that the Turkish PM has communicated some things that should be considered for debate. Here is some of what he had to say:
He's got a point there. There should be no distinctions made in these cases, no country should be expected to live under a threat of senseless violence, from any entity. Period.
I do not think he is asking too much, at this point. How can we realistically expect to forge some kind of coherent approach to getting Iran to stop exporting their brand of terrorism, if we stand idly by and watch the PKK wreak havoc, within the borders of a long-time ally?
Turkey has massed 140,000 soldiers on its border with northern Iraq, Iraq's foreign minister said Monday, calling the neighboring country's fears of Kurdish rebels based there "legitimate" but better resolved through negotiation.
In this post here, I posed a simple question , but at the time it was not answerable.
Is it a defensive posture to prevent attacks by the PKK? Or is it something else? Stay tuned.
Well, I have. And today we see that the Turkish PM has communicated some things that should be considered for debate. Here is some of what he had to say:
"No country can continue living under the constant threat of terrorism," Erdogan said in his office at his party headquarters in Ankara. "This struggle has the same legitimacy for Turkey as it has for the U.S., Spain or United Kingdom."
He's got a point there. There should be no distinctions made in these cases, no country should be expected to live under a threat of senseless violence, from any entity. Period.
"We have done our part in joint struggle against terrorism in Afghanistan as requested by the U.S.," Erdogan said. "Now, we expect the same approach from the U.S."
I do not think he is asking too much, at this point. How can we realistically expect to forge some kind of coherent approach to getting Iran to stop exporting their brand of terrorism, if we stand idly by and watch the PKK wreak havoc, within the borders of a long-time ally?
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Times: Israel Hit Syrian Nuclear Cache
Thursday, I posted a piece on the recent raid conducted which reportedly resulted in a Syrian target being destroyed. Friday, I posted an update on that post, with some sketchy speculation.
Now, there is more information being released, discovered, or has somehow come to light that gives us something more to chew on, while we try to understand this better.
It's easy to speculate from where I sit without having the resources that the London Times has access to. The article seems to do a good job of presenting what they have learned, up to this point. And I do not find it to be unreasonable in its assumptions. But in this kind of thing, one can never be 100% sure, if the picture we see is 100% clear.
Having worked for government before, I have had several incidents occur that I had first hand knowledge of. Yet when I read the account in the newspaper, it looked nothing like it happened. In some areas, it was similar but not exact. So one must always view what they read, with a critical eye.
The general consensus seems to be that there was in fact, nuclear material involved, very possibly from North Korea. The purpose of that material seems to be very much in question. But the two entities that can settle the speculation, Syria and Israel, are remaining very tight-lipped. This is forcing media outlets to dig and piece together information slowly.
Check the article out, if you haven't already. The one thing that you can put together after reading this is: Whatever the reason those materials were there, it was for no peaceful purpose.
Now, there is more information being released, discovered, or has somehow come to light that gives us something more to chew on, while we try to understand this better.
It's easy to speculate from where I sit without having the resources that the London Times has access to. The article seems to do a good job of presenting what they have learned, up to this point. And I do not find it to be unreasonable in its assumptions. But in this kind of thing, one can never be 100% sure, if the picture we see is 100% clear.
Having worked for government before, I have had several incidents occur that I had first hand knowledge of. Yet when I read the account in the newspaper, it looked nothing like it happened. In some areas, it was similar but not exact. So one must always view what they read, with a critical eye.
The general consensus seems to be that there was in fact, nuclear material involved, very possibly from North Korea. The purpose of that material seems to be very much in question. But the two entities that can settle the speculation, Syria and Israel, are remaining very tight-lipped. This is forcing media outlets to dig and piece together information slowly.
Check the article out, if you haven't already. The one thing that you can put together after reading this is: Whatever the reason those materials were there, it was for no peaceful purpose.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Did Turkey Provide Intelligence To Israel?
The Jerusalem Post is reporting that Israel was given intelligence from Turkey, on the targets they hit in Syria. In addition to this, it states Israel was given permission by the Turkish Army to use its airspace, while doing so. This seems to conflict with an earlier report that seemed to indicate Turkey was not too pleased about the use of their airspace.
Many theories can arise out of the ashes. But one thing people must understand is: When the parties do not address the situation directly, there's no real way of knowing what the truth is. Good intelligence also employs the effective use of smoke screens. It may very well be the case here. We just do not know.
At first, Turkey seemed taken back by all of this. Now this leaks out. Such is the cloak and dagger world, in the 21st century.
Many theories can arise out of the ashes. But one thing people must understand is: When the parties do not address the situation directly, there's no real way of knowing what the truth is. Good intelligence also employs the effective use of smoke screens. It may very well be the case here. We just do not know.
At first, Turkey seemed taken back by all of this. Now this leaks out. Such is the cloak and dagger world, in the 21st century.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Did Israelis Hit Syrian Nuke Site?
For those that thought Israel was being a good puppet of the U.S. empire and emulating its imperialistic friend, you may want to think again.
The NYT is reporting that Israeli forces did, in fact, hit specific targets in their recent air raid.
Looking at this with an analytical eye, we can see why the possibility of this is reasonable to consider. North Korea (NK) is trying to get back into the good graces of the world community after drawing ire from reasonable people, everywhere. They have announced that they will shut down their program. Why would that be so?
Maybe, because they have what they want, now?
With the bulk of the R&D completed, the rush to get into compliance may be precipitating a fire sale. Dumping these excess materials to someone that desperately wants to have them, would not only help them get ready for inspection, they would yield some cash for restocking Kim Jong Il's cognac inventory. When money gets tight, I guess one has to sacrifice a little luxury.
No, I am confident that Israel had a good reason to hit the targets that no one wants to talk about. They are not about bragging, they are about protecting its citizens.
But back to the issue at hand.
NK had a reaction, let's look at part of that reaction:
I cannot help but wonder if they haven't been paid for the materials yet and are trying to politically caress the Syrians here. But yet, it's been known that NK, Iran, and Syria have been missile trading partners, for awhile now. So in essence, I fail to see the big surprise. This alliance isn't new at all and it has been watched.
But watching can only take you so far. When something is seen that threatens the safety and security of a nation, it is at that point, the watching has to stop and the acting has to begin. Evidently, Israel has made its transition from observer to participant. Watching them install whatever they were apparently installing, seemed to concern them enough to act. This is something we sorely need to look at in rest of the Western world, or we may catch fire while watching.
The choice is ours.
ADDENDUM:
VDH has a new essay and as usual, he hits the ball right out of the park. It somewhat pertains to this post's topic (or it will when the world's condemnation machine for Israel gets cranked up, over this affair).
The NYT is reporting that Israeli forces did, in fact, hit specific targets in their recent air raid.
After days of silence from the Israeli government, American officials confirmed Tuesday that Israeli warplanes launched airstrikes inside Syria last week, the first such attack since 2003. Syria has lodged a protest at the United Nations in response to the airstrike, accusing Israel of “flagrant violation” of its airspace. But Israel’s government has repeatedly declined to comment on the matter.
Looking at this with an analytical eye, we can see why the possibility of this is reasonable to consider. North Korea (NK) is trying to get back into the good graces of the world community after drawing ire from reasonable people, everywhere. They have announced that they will shut down their program. Why would that be so?
Maybe, because they have what they want, now?
With the bulk of the R&D completed, the rush to get into compliance may be precipitating a fire sale. Dumping these excess materials to someone that desperately wants to have them, would not only help them get ready for inspection, they would yield some cash for restocking Kim Jong Il's cognac inventory. When money gets tight, I guess one has to sacrifice a little luxury.
No, I am confident that Israel had a good reason to hit the targets that no one wants to talk about. They are not about bragging, they are about protecting its citizens.
But back to the issue at hand.
NK had a reaction, let's look at part of that reaction:
North Korea lashed out Tuesday at Israel for invading Syrian airspace last Thursday, its official news agency said.
"This is a very dangerous provocation little short of wantonly violating the sovereignty of Syria and seriously harassing the regional peace and security," a spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry was quoted as saying by the Korean Central News Agency.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea strongly denounces the above-said intrusion and extends full support and solidarity to the Syrian people in their just cause to defend the national security and the regional peace," he added.
I cannot help but wonder if they haven't been paid for the materials yet and are trying to politically caress the Syrians here. But yet, it's been known that NK, Iran, and Syria have been missile trading partners, for awhile now. So in essence, I fail to see the big surprise. This alliance isn't new at all and it has been watched.
But watching can only take you so far. When something is seen that threatens the safety and security of a nation, it is at that point, the watching has to stop and the acting has to begin. Evidently, Israel has made its transition from observer to participant. Watching them install whatever they were apparently installing, seemed to concern them enough to act. This is something we sorely need to look at in rest of the Western world, or we may catch fire while watching.
The choice is ours.
ADDENDUM:
VDH has a new essay and as usual, he hits the ball right out of the park. It somewhat pertains to this post's topic (or it will when the world's condemnation machine for Israel gets cranked up, over this affair).
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Sarkozy Gets It
French President Sarkozy is taking his position and stating it, rather clearly and it leaves nothing to the imagination. Look at what is being reported in the IHT.
I think he did well in saying this, because it needs to be said. (That is not to say that I think we should be in a hurry to do so.) And, I do agree with the assessment in the second paragraph.
The real beauty in this is not the fact that he said it. He said it, and he said it for a reason. But the real effectiveness is in what he didn't say. He's a skilled politician, no doubt he figured his statement would be featured for the next news cycle (or two). No doubt he knew the message would get to the Iranian leaders. I am positive he knows that others will get it, also.
He knows the Iranians need to hear it. Imagine how concerned they must be, knowing that they aren't dealing with Jacques Chirac and his policy of inconsistency, anymore.
You see, I think Sarkozy gets it, for a good many reasons. I think he understands that Iran's nuclear program is a threat. But more importantly, think he knows there's a real risk Hillary may very well get elected next year, putting the U.S. in a weaker position (and if she doesn't, the GOP could get someone elected that doesn't know squat, about foreign policy). Knowing this as he does, Sarkozy wants to be in a position to take the lead, should the next American President be capable of dropping the ball on this Iran issue. He knows it's that important.
He gets a lot of things that many Frenchmen do not give him credit for. He sends his Foreign Minister to Iraq to help, because he knows things have to get on track. (His FM gets it too.)
He knows that the instability is not good and he wants to help. He's not burying his head in the sand or wagging his finger in judgment about either the inefficiency of the effort (or the reasoning behind it). He knows that's not important now. What's important is the "here and now", as it pertains to the future. He understands the current reality in the international world and thankfully, his critics can be damned.
And wouldn't you know that after this statement was reported, Iran has made a move in the right direction?
Not a real strong move, but it's one that is minutely measurable. It may be just words, but you have to put all of this into proper perspective. Iran is used to saying it's not going to do anything, but now it is. That's no reason to celebrate, but we still have something to work with. We see an opportunity.
Not only does he show he understands Iran and Iraq, look at what he has to say about Russia:
Does anyone really think Chirac would have the courage to say something like this?
Before, Chirac didn't give a damn about anything, if it didn't have to do with embarrassing the United States. He wouldn't have openly helped us for anything, and for sure he didn't much. In fact, him and some of his countrymen actually love to take public pleasure in gloating about the stalemate that had become Iraq, prior to the surge. Now, France has someone that is in a position to help and is actually trying to get a feel for things, so that he may be able to assist in preserving Western freedoms that we all enjoy.
He takes a lot of heat from those that aren't fans of the U.S. and/or its policy. But despite that fact, he's still carving out his niche because he knows that if the U.S. fails in Iraq and Iran gains nuclear capabilities, France will not benefit. He knows it and he believes it.
I think he's read the old quote from FDR:
Don't think he has the same motives Chirac did. This is a very different man with a very different ideology and worldview. He knows that all of us that enjoy freedom must be able to work together, if we will be successful in creating a real peace. He may be liberal by American standards in many issues, but when it comes to the well-being and security of the free world, he's with us. He may disagree with specifics, but he gets the big picture. He's the man France needed. If America makes the wrong choice in 2008, he may turn out to be the man the world will need.
In his first major foreign policy speech as president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy said Monday that Iran could be attacked militarily if it did not live up to its international obligations to curb its nuclear program.
Addressing France's ambassadorial corps, Sarkozy stressed that such an outcome would be a disaster. He did not say that France would ever participate in military action against Iran or even tacitly support such an approach.
I think he did well in saying this, because it needs to be said. (That is not to say that I think we should be in a hurry to do so.) And, I do agree with the assessment in the second paragraph.
The real beauty in this is not the fact that he said it. He said it, and he said it for a reason. But the real effectiveness is in what he didn't say. He's a skilled politician, no doubt he figured his statement would be featured for the next news cycle (or two). No doubt he knew the message would get to the Iranian leaders. I am positive he knows that others will get it, also.
He knows the Iranians need to hear it. Imagine how concerned they must be, knowing that they aren't dealing with Jacques Chirac and his policy of inconsistency, anymore.
You see, I think Sarkozy gets it, for a good many reasons. I think he understands that Iran's nuclear program is a threat. But more importantly, think he knows there's a real risk Hillary may very well get elected next year, putting the U.S. in a weaker position (and if she doesn't, the GOP could get someone elected that doesn't know squat, about foreign policy). Knowing this as he does, Sarkozy wants to be in a position to take the lead, should the next American President be capable of dropping the ball on this Iran issue. He knows it's that important.
He gets a lot of things that many Frenchmen do not give him credit for. He sends his Foreign Minister to Iraq to help, because he knows things have to get on track. (His FM gets it too.)
He knows that the instability is not good and he wants to help. He's not burying his head in the sand or wagging his finger in judgment about either the inefficiency of the effort (or the reasoning behind it). He knows that's not important now. What's important is the "here and now", as it pertains to the future. He understands the current reality in the international world and thankfully, his critics can be damned.
And wouldn't you know that after this statement was reported, Iran has made a move in the right direction?
Not a real strong move, but it's one that is minutely measurable. It may be just words, but you have to put all of this into proper perspective. Iran is used to saying it's not going to do anything, but now it is. That's no reason to celebrate, but we still have something to work with. We see an opportunity.
Not only does he show he understands Iran and Iraq, look at what he has to say about Russia:
In another break with the Chirac regime, Mr Sarkozy hardened his tone against Vladimir Putin, saying Russia was using its oil and gas wealth with "brutality".
Does anyone really think Chirac would have the courage to say something like this?
Before, Chirac didn't give a damn about anything, if it didn't have to do with embarrassing the United States. He wouldn't have openly helped us for anything, and for sure he didn't much. In fact, him and some of his countrymen actually love to take public pleasure in gloating about the stalemate that had become Iraq, prior to the surge. Now, France has someone that is in a position to help and is actually trying to get a feel for things, so that he may be able to assist in preserving Western freedoms that we all enjoy.
He takes a lot of heat from those that aren't fans of the U.S. and/or its policy. But despite that fact, he's still carving out his niche because he knows that if the U.S. fails in Iraq and Iran gains nuclear capabilities, France will not benefit. He knows it and he believes it.
I think he's read the old quote from FDR:
“Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway.”
Don't think he has the same motives Chirac did. This is a very different man with a very different ideology and worldview. He knows that all of us that enjoy freedom must be able to work together, if we will be successful in creating a real peace. He may be liberal by American standards in many issues, but when it comes to the well-being and security of the free world, he's with us. He may disagree with specifics, but he gets the big picture. He's the man France needed. If America makes the wrong choice in 2008, he may turn out to be the man the world will need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)