Thursday, December 30, 2004

Priceless..The UN Responds

JunkYardBlog has such a good response to the UN's continued melt down that I have nothing to add. This is a point by point response and it is priceless.

The other day, the UN called the US "stingy" for not immediately pledging
to spend ten times its annual GDP to help the tsunami victims. Now the US is
leading the relief effort so well that the UN sees it all as a threat--to the
You'd better sit down before you read this:

United States President George Bush was tonight accused of trying to
undermine the United Nations by setting up a rival coalition to coordinate
relief following the Asian tsunami disaster.
The president has announced
that the US, Japan, India and Australia would coordinate the world’s
But former International Development Secretary Clare Short said
that role should be left to the UN.
“I think this initiative from America
set up four countries claiming to coordinate sounds like yet another
attempt to
undermine the UN when it is the best system we have got and the
one that needs
building up,” she said.
“Only really the UN can do that
job,” she told BBC
Radio Four’s PM programme.
“It is the only body that
has the moral authority.
But it can only do it well if it is backed up by
the authority of the great
She said the US was “very bad at
coordinating with anyone” and India
had its own problems to deal with.
don’t know what that is about but it
sounds very much, I am afraid, like the
US trying to have a separate operation
and not work with the rest of the
world through the UN system,” she added.

Let's take this piecemeal, shall we.
1. "Rival coalition." Only
a self-absorbed UNuch could see a US-led effort to help millions of victims as a
"rival coalition." And since when does the UN see groups of sovereign nations as
"rivals," anyway. This UN bureaucrat seems to ....

Oh there is more and it says volumns and Preston says it well. It's a hoot as we rednecks say.

The fellas at Diplomad has more...heh!

From "When Devils Walk the Earth"

This essay is extracted from Ralph Peters' new book, "When Devils Walk the Earth." It is a must-read. The man is prescient. If you focus on nothing else, peruse the last point; Number 25. I added the "bold" and red color to points I thought ought to receive major emphasis.......Ed(Ed is Major General, USA, Ret, Ed Browne)
Chapter III. Fighting Terror: Do's and Don'ts for a Superpower:
1. Be feared!

2. Identify the type of terrorists you face, and know your enemy as well as you possibly can. Although tactics may be similar, strategies for dealing with practical vs. apocalyptic terrorists can differ widely. Practical terrorists may have legitimate grievances that deserve consideration, although their methods cannot be tolerated. Apocalyptic terrorists, no matter their rhetoric, seek your destruction and must be killed to the last man. The apt metaphor is cancer: you cannot hope for success if you only cut out part of the tumor. For the apocalyptic terrorist, evading your efforts can easily be turned into a public triumph. Our bloodiest successes will create far fewer terrorists and sympathizers than our failures.

3. Do not be afraid to be powerful. Cold War-era gambits of proportionate response and dialog may have some utility in dealing with practical terrorists, but they are counter-productive in dealing with apocalyptic terrorists. Our great strengths are wealth and raw power. When we fail to bring those strengths to bear, we contribute to our own defeat. For a superpower to think small, which has been our habit across the last decade, at least, is self-defeating folly. Our responses to terrorist acts should make the world gasp!

4. Speak bluntly. Euphemisms are interpreted as weakness by our enemies and mislead the American people. Speak of killing terrorists and destroying their organizations. Timid speech leads to timid actions. Explain when necessary, but do not apologize. Expressions of regret are never seen as a mark of decency by terrorists or their supporters, but only as a sign that our will is faltering. Blame the terrorists as the root cause whenever operations have unintended negative consequences. Never go on the rhetorical defensive.

5. Concentrate on winning the propaganda war where it is winnable. Focus on keeping or enhancing the support from allies and well-disposed clients, but do not waste an inordinate amount of effort trying to win unwinnable hearts and minds. Convince hostile populations through victory.

6. Do not be drawn into a public dialog with terrorists, especially not with apocalyptic terrorists. You cannot win. You legitimize the terrorists by addressing them even through a third medium, and their extravagant claims will resound more successfully on their own home ground than anything you can say. Ignore absurd accusations, and never let the enemy's claims slow or sidetrack you. The terrorist wants you to react, and your best means of unbalancing him and his plan is to ignore his accusations.

7. Avoid planning creep. Within our vast bureaucratic system, too many voices compete for attention and innumerable agendas, often selfish and personal - intrude on any attempt to act decisively. Focus on the basic mission: the destruction of the terrorists with all the moral, intellectual and practical rigor you can bring to bear. All other issues, from future nation building, to alliance consensus, to humanitarian concerns are secondary.

8. Maintain resolve. Especially in the Middle East and Central Asia, experts and diplomats will always present you with a multitude of good reasons for doing nothing, or for doing too little (or for doing exactly the wrong thing). Fight as hard as you can within the system to prevent diplomats from gaining influence over the strategic campaign. Although their intentions are often good, our diplomats and their obsolete strategic views are the terrorist's unwitting allies and diplomats are extremely jealous of military success and military authority in their region (where their expertise is never as deep or subtle as they believe it to be). Beyond the problem with our diplomats, the broader forces of bureaucratic entropy are an internal threat. The counter-terrorist campaign must be not only resolute, but constantly self-rejuvenating in ideas, techniques, military and inter-agency combinations, and sheer energy. Old hands must be stimulated constantly by new ideas.

9. When in doubt, hit harder than you think necessary. Success will be forgiven. Even the best-intentioned failure will not. When military force is used against terrorist networks, it should be used with such power that it stuns even our allies. We must get over our cowardice in means. While small-scale raids and other knifepoint operations are useful against individual targets, broader operations should be overwhelming. Of course, targeting limitations may inhibit some efforts but whenever possible, maximum force should be used in simultaneous operations at the very beginning of a campaign. Do not hesitate to supplement initial target lists with extensive bombing attacks on nothing if they can increase the initial psychological impact. Demonstrate power whenever you can. Show; don't tell!

10. Whenever legal conditions permit, kill terrorists on the spot (do not give them a chance to surrender, if you can help it). Contrary to academic wisdom, the surest way to make a martyr of a terrorist is to capture, convict and imprison him, leading to endless efforts by sympathizers to stage kidnappings, hijacking and other events intended to liberate the imprisoned terrorist(s). This is war, not law enforcement.
11. Never listen to those who warn that ferocity on our part reduces us to the level of the terrorists. That is the argument of the campus, not of the battlefield, and it insults America's service members and the American people. Historically, we have proven, time after time, that we can do a tough, dirty job for our country without any damage to our nation's moral fabric (Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not interfere with American democracy, values or behavior).

12. Spare and protect innocent civilians whenever possible, but: do not let the prospect of civilian casualties interfere with ultimate mission accomplishment. This is a fight to protect the American people, and we must do so whatever the cost, or the price in American lives may be devastating. In a choice between them, and us the choice is always us.
13. Do not allow the terrorists to hide behind religion. Apocalyptic terrorists cite religion as a justification for attacking us; in turn, we cannot let them hide behind religious holidays, taboos, strictures or even sacred terrain. We must establish a consistent reputation for relentless pursuit and destruction of those who kill our citizens. Until we do this, our hesitation will continue to strengthen our enemy's ranks and his resolve.

14. Do not allow third parties to broker a peace, a truce, or any pause in operations. One of the most difficult challenges in fighting terrorism on a global scale is the drag produced by nervous allies. We must be single-minded. The best thing we can do for our allies in the long-term is to be so resolute and so strong that they value their alliance with us all the more. We must recognize the innate strength of our position and stop allowing regional leaders with counterproductive local agendas to subdue or dilute our efforts.

15. Don't flinch. If an operation goes awry and friendly casualties are unexpectedly high, immediately bolster morale and the military's image by striking back swiftly in a manner that inflicts the maximum possible number of casualties on the enemy and his supporters. Hit back as graphically as possible, to impress upon the local and regional players that you weren't badly hurt or deterred in the least.

16. Do not worry about alienating already-hostile populations. --(ED ADDED, "OR ANTI-WAR SENATORS ASPIRING TO BECOME PRESIDENT OF OUR GREAT NATION.")

17. Whenever possible, humiliate your enemy in the eyes of his own people. Do not try to use reasonable arguments against him. Shame him publicly, in any way you can. Create doubt where you cannot excite support. Most apocalyptic terrorists, especially, come from cultures of male vanity. Disgrace them at every opportunity. Done successfully, this both degrades them in the eyes of their followers and supporters, and provokes the terrorist to respond, increasing his vulnerability.

18. If the terrorists hide, strike what they hold dear, using clandestine means and, whenever possible, foreign agents to provoke them to break cover and react. Do not be squeamish. Your enemy is not. Subtlety is not superpower strength but the raw power to do that, which is necessary, is our great advantage. We forget that, while the world may happily chide or accuse us-or complain of our inhumanity-no one can stop us if we maintain our strength of will. Much of the world will complain no matter what we do. Hatred of America is the default position of failed individuals and failing states around the world, in every civilization, and there is nothing we can do to change their minds. We refuse to understand how much of humanity will find excuses for evil, so long as the evil strikes those who are more successful than the apologists themselves. This is as true of American academics, whose eagerness to declare our military efforts a failure is unflagging, or European clerics, who still cannot forgive America's magnanimity at the end of World War II, as it is of unemployed Egyptians or Pakistanis. The psychologically marginalized are at least as dangerous as the physically deprived.

19. Do not allow the terrorists sanctuary in any country, at any time, under any circumstances. Counter-terrorist operations must, above all, be relentless. This does not necessarily mean that military operations will be constantly underway sometimes it will be surveillance efforts, or deception plans, or operations by other agencies. But the overall effort must never pause for breath. We must be faster, more resolute, more resourceful and, ultimately, even more uncompromising than our enemies.

20. Never declare victory. Announce successes and milestones. But never give the terrorists a chance to embarrass you after a public pronouncement that the war is over.

21. Impress upon the minds of terrorists and potential terrorists everywhere, and upon the populations and governments inclined to support them, that American retaliation will be powerful and uncompromising. You will never deter fanatics, but you can frighten those who might support, harbor or attempt to use terrorists for their own ends. Our basic task in the world today is to restore a sense of American power, capabilities and resolve. We must be hard, or we will be struck wherever we are soft. It is folly for charity to precede victory. First win, then unclench your fist.

22. Do everything possible to make terrorists and their active supporters live in terror themselves. Turn the tide psychologically and practically. While this will not deter hard-core apocalyptic terrorists, it will dissipate their energies as they try to defend themselves and fear will deter many less-committed supporters of terror. Do not be distracted by the baggage of the term assassination. This is a war. The enemy, whether a hijacker or a financier, violates the laws of war by his refusal to wear a uniform and by purposely targeting civilians. He is by definition a war criminal. On our soil, he is either a spy or a saboteur, and not entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution. Those who abet terrorists must grow afraid to turn out the lights to go to sleep.

23. Never accept the consensus of the Washington intelligentsia, which looks backward to past failures, not forward to future successes.

24. In dealing with Islamic apocalyptic terrorists, remember that their most cherished symbols are fewer and far more vulnerable than are the West's. Ultimately, no potential target can be regarded as off-limits when the United States is threatened with mass casualties. Worry less about offending foreign sensibilities and more about protecting Americans.

25. Do not look for answers in recent history, which is still unclear and subject to personal emotion. Begin with the study of the classical world, specifically Rome, which is the nearest model to the present-day United States. Mild with subject peoples, to whom they brought the rule of ethical law, the Romans in their rise and at their apogee were implacable with their enemies. The utter destruction of Carthage brought centuries of local peace, while the later empire's attempts to appease barbarians consistently failed!

What Makes a Terrorist

James Q. Wilson writes in the City Journal about what terrorists are made of and what can be done to combat them. In an eye-opening essay he gives a look at the history of terrorism and its modern manifestations.

Until the nineteenth century, religion was usually the only acceptable
justification of terror. It is not hard to understand why: religion gives its
true believers an account of the good life and a way of recognizing evil; if you
believe that evil in the form of wrong beliefs and mistaken customs weakens or
corrupts a life ordained by God, you are under a profound obligation to combat
that evil. If you enjoy the companionship of like-minded believers, combating
that evil can require that you commit violent, even suicidal, acts.

The Thuggees of India during their several centuries of existence may
have killed by slow strangulation 1 million people as sacrifices to the Hindu
goddess Kali. The Thugs had no political objective and, when caught, looked
forward to their execution as a quick route to paradise.
In the Muslim world,
one kind of terrorism, assassination, has existed since shortly after the death
of the prophet Muhammad. Of his early successors, three were....

It is well researched and thought out and definately worth reading it all.
(Thanks to Ed L. for the lead.)

Monday, December 27, 2004

Body blow to Iraq Elections...Give me a Hanky

Listening to the news I heard a talking head stating that the recent decision of the major Sunni political party has decided to not participate in the upcoming elections, citing "security concerns". This was called a "body blow to the election process". Give me a friggin' break. It's the Sunni and Ba'athist factions that are causing the "security concerns". If they want better security, turn on the terrorists and root them out instead of giving active support to the bastards, or even tacit support. If they don't want to participate in the elections, fine. Leave them out there to twist in the wind and let the Iraqi people who want a free, democratic country vote for it.

The body blow comment was so laughable I thought that if the Green party in the States decided to "not participate" in an election, what a devestating blow that would be to our election process. What if the KKK decided to not participate? Horror of horrors. You get my point. Have a happy New Year and let's hope the new year in Iraq starts on January 30, 2005 as scheduled.

Tuesday, December 21, 2004

Developing nations will have to fight for Internet rights: study

I thought this was worth a post of its own.

Developing nations will have to fight for Internet rights: study

By Khalid HasanWASHINGTON: The phenomenal rise of the Internet has pitched
developing countries against Western states, led by the United States, because
while the former want the new medium to be internationally controlled, the
latter want it in private hands...

The writer points out that many developing countries want governments to
play a larger role in what appears on the Internet through the International
Telecommunications Union, a UN agency. The world’s richer nations want to
preserve the status quo. Some in the private sector fear increased government
involvement could slow innovation and lead to more red tape. The US opposes new,
international controls for the Internet. Washington and other developed
countries feel it is imperative that web governance remains under the ambit of
the private sector and is not transferred to the United Nations as proposed by
countries such as China and Brazil. Calls for “international rules” overseen by
the UN to govern the web must cover technical questions, such as the attribution
of web addresses and management of domain names, as well as the protection of
intellectual property...

There is more and worth reading on what is at stake for the developing countries rights and future of the blogosphere. Even the future of present and emerging democracies is being challenged. I doubt that the MSM will come out with the First Amendment as the blogs have turned out to be a thorn in their side.

Monday, December 20, 2004

Light Blogging but...

Check out the fellas at Diplomad on their nominations for allies. For an extention of the Cowardice post check out LGF link to and the problems facing Europe...a must read, that's an order. David Warren, my fav Canuck has his latest that I recommend (I recommend all of his stuff) about the Catholic Church and the UN. Just who the hell does the Belmont Club think they are by bringing up a possible collusion of the AP and terrorists? I grow weary and now will retire to my troglodyte haven and regenerate. Merry Christmas and will see you tommorrow (maybe).

Friday, December 17, 2004

No Intelligence on the Intelligence Committee

I was going to just include this in the upcoming Bozone Awards but this is so stupid that it deserves its own little mention. This is not only stupid but criminal activity from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence members. Jeff Babin reports on this idiocy.

Don’t Play "Misty" for Me
Jed Babbin
Published 12/16/2004
12:08:30 AM
How long are we going to tolerate senators and congressmen who
divulge our most closely-held secrets to the public in search of cheap political
gain? We have laws that make those leaks serious federal crimes. We're spending
enormous resources on finding out who leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA
agent to the press. Leaks that are vastly more important -- and which should be
pursued with no less determination and resources -- are regularly ignored
because the culprits are sitting members of Congress. These leakers should be
thrown out of office and prosecuted. It's been about two years since Sen.
Richard Shelby blew one of our most important secrets -- that we were bugging
Osama bin Laden's cell phone, a fact that could have led to the capture of
America's most wanted terrorist -- by bragging about it to a reporter. Shelby's
action (if it really was him) has never been prosecuted. Why not? Now, another
huge leak comes in the form of the disclosure by members of the Senate of a
highly-classified satellite program. Three members of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence have apparently committed a very serious crime by
blabbing about a highly-classified satellite program to the press last week. If
these men actually did what it appears they did, we ought to throw the book at
'em for divulging one of our most-protected secrets: stealthy reconnaissance
satellites. As a result of their revelations to the public and the press, three
U.S. Senators -- Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who's also the ranking Dem on
the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Ron Wyden
(D-Ore.) -- are the subject of a "criminal referral" made on Monday for speaking
publicly about this satellite. Such referrals are made to the Justice Department
by the administration when criminal conduct is suspected. In this case, it's not
only suspected, it's evidenced on the front pages of the New York Times and the
Washington Post. A highly reliable intelligence community source told me that
the referral had been made because senior administration officials were beside
themselves that the three had taken the controversy on funding this project to
the press. YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND that the kind of project we're talking about
is protected by the highest level of security our government has. When Sandy
Bergler was carrying "code word" level papers out of the National Archives in
his pants and socks, he was committing a federal felony. So -- according to
sources -- was Sen. Richard Shelby, who is the subject of an earlier criminal
referral for blabbing about our bugging OBL's cell phone. When the government
buys something secret, those that are most classified are called "black"
programs because their existence can't even be admitted. They aren't listed in
the public versions of legislation that authorizes and pays for them. Black
programs are made so for a reason. Think about why we might build a stealthy
satellite. Many nations, including Iran and other terrorist regimes, have the
ability to spot conventional satellites on their radars. They can predict with
considerable accuracy what those satellites can see, and when. If we had a
satellite that couldn't be seen, its view of the bad guys couldn't be predicted.
Now, these three senators have blown the cover on a black satellite program that
may be code-word named "Misty," and by so doing, reduced the value of the
satellite and the strategy that it is to implement to zero. To be cleared for
these programs, which the senators and their intel staffers all are, each had to
be briefed in detail about their legal obligations, and how the information has
to be handled. They would have had to sign agreements such as the one I signed
when I had these clearances. The paperwork warns you -- loudly and clearly --
that this is a damned serious matter. If they divulged information on this
program -- whatever the program may actually be -- they broke the law knowingly
and intentionally. The three senators made a variety of disclosures about the
program. Rockefeller made a statement on the Senate floor which his staff claims
was "fully vetted and approved by security officials." Baloney. According to a
congressional source, Rockefeller's statement wasn't cleared with anyone in the
Pentagon or CIA, and wasn't checked by the Intelligence Committee majority
staff. Whomever "vetted" it isn't clear, but it wasn't done by the proper

This is something that should get widespread attention bu t won't because of who is involved. As "they" say, read the whole thing.

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Europe – Thy Name is Cowardice

Europe – Thy Name is Cowardice
Matthias Döpfner, Chief Executive of German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in the daily WELT against the cowardice of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat. Hartmut Lau translated the article for us.
Europe – Thy Name is Cowardice Commentary by Mathias DöpfnerA few days ago Henryk M. Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe – your family name is appeasement." It’s a phrase you can’t get out of your head because it’s so terribly true.Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement stabilized communism in the Soviet Union and East Germany in that part of Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo and we Europeans debated and debated until the Americans came in and did our work for us. Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore 300,000 victims of Saddam’s torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, to issue bad grades to George Bush. A particularly grotesque form of appeasement is reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by suggesting that we should really have a Muslim holiday in Germany.What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians and directed against our free, open Western societies.It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than the great military conflicts of the last century—a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but only spurred on by such gestures, which will be mistaken for signs of weakness.Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Reagan ended the Cold War and Bush, supported only by the social democrat Blair acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic fight against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner instead of defending liberal society’s values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China. On the contrary—we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to the intolerant, as world champions in tolerance, which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we’re so moral? I fear it’s more because we’re so materialistic.For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy—because everything is at stake.While the alleged capitalistic robber barons in American know their priorities, we timidly defend our social welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive. We’d rather discuss the 35-hour workweek or our dental health plan coverage. Or listen to TV pastors preach about "reaching out to murderers." These days, Europe reminds me of an elderly aunt who hides her last pieces of jewelry with shaking hands when she notices a robber has broken into a neighbor’s house. Europe, thy name is cowardice. (emphasis added)
Matthias Döpfner has done it before - criticizing the spineless reaction of the European political elites to the dangers of Islamic terror.
He is by far the most powerful voice in the German media against the reappearance of the rotten European appeasement policies of the 20th century.

Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Semper Fi

Mixed in with the news about casualties of our service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan and occasional overblown articles about some of our military "abuses" and the story about an (IMO) idiot asking to have his finger cut off to save a damned wedding ring there comes a perspective from one of my favorite blogs, this little Christmas story. From the Diplomad about those young Marines that protect our foreign service worldwide.

"...I don't want to denigrate any of our other fine armed services, but at
State we have had a long and special relationship with the USMC. Since 1948,
some of the best Marines get seconded to us to protect our diplomatic missions
abroad. In addition, of course, both before and since 1948, it's the Marines who
come yank us out when it all goes to hell or, as in Somalia and Liberia, save
the Embassy from a howling mob...."

An excellent perspective and well worth the time to read it all. Merry Christmas and Semper Fi.

Sunday, December 12, 2004

Meanwhile, back at the rant...

The Bush administration says that Kofi Annan should not resign. Why would they say this? I have a few ideas but they are just that, suppositions and opinion. Until the Iraq elections are a done deal, we need the UN to lend credibility to the process. (I can't believe I just used UN and credibility in the same sentence.) The administration has never suggested that Kofi resign or get canned and I would be surprised if they did in a public way. Norm Coleman (R) and Carl Levin (D) are doing that job and sending the message quite well. What I see probably happening is a movement within the Legislature to cut off funding of the UN until there is a serious house cleaning and a more transparent use of funds. Whoever replaces John Danforth will be walking the back hallways and doing what is necessary to form another coalition, a coalition of the fed up. Boutros Ghali was shown the door by the same method. Also the next SecGen is supposed to come from Asia. That could be a problem.

The UN and most of it's subsidiaries are so corrupt that I'm not sure it can be repaired. Even UNICEF has turned into a joke. The Diplomad has an excellent post about this sacred cow and I highly recommend that you read the whole thing.

For us older Diplomads that word still conjures up memories from the 1950s/60s .
. . Collecting coins in elementary school and on Halloween "trick-or-treat"
expeditions, being assured by kindly fourth and fifth grade teachers that our
pennies, nickels and dimes would help young altruistic UNICEF workers save
starving and sick children in exotic places such as Africa, Brazil and India . .
. . Ah, yes, UNICEF . . .Snap out of it! We're sorry to say this, but it ain't
your daddy's UNICEF anymore!
us explain

Paul Weyrich, who heads the conservative Free Congress Foundation, writes in his Web commentary, "The U.N. now is dominated by nations of the Third World whose values are so distant from our own that they won't even object to the genocide occurring in the Sudan."

Cal Thomas has an opinion on what we should do...Get out. I don't see this happening even though it does bring more visions of sugar plums than staying in. As I have posted before, the UN is dirty to the core. It cannot or will not deal with corruption in its organization, it allows blatant sexual harrassment by the "suits" and rape and pillage by its "blue Helmet peace keepers". It ignores genocide, nuclear proliferation and can't even come up with a definition of what terrorism is. Kofi and his minions would rather fiddle while the world burns.

When anything is done in the world in the way of humanitarian aid or defense, it is always the democratic countries that do it. Usually led by the US but with much help from our real friends such as the UK, Australia, and now Italy, Poland and even Japan. Many other countries have adopted a more caring attitude about the world and they are all democracies. The UN debates and gives lip service while shedding crocodile tears and wringing their collective hands.

Friday, December 10, 2004

Bozone Awards 12/10/04

Here we go again with the latest installment of the Bozone Awards.

  1. "Mr Annan is doing an excellent job as secretary-general," said British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, perhaps America's closest ally.
  2. The BBC. They continue to follow in the footsteps of CBS and the NYT. Must be a pandemic.
  3. Sen. Mark Dayton (D) Minn. Bizarro dude.
  4. The United Nations Correspondents Association

5. The British Parliament and the "a mans home is no longer his castle" stance. More here, here, here.

6. John Conyers and Jesse Jackson.

Thursday, December 09, 2004

PC Greetings

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all ...

... And a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2005, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great, (not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country or is the only "AMERICA" in the Western Hemisphere), and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of the wishee.

By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.)

In other words... Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Monday, December 06, 2004

Some Light in the Darkness Perhaps?


Free Elections in the Arab World Occur Only in Occupied Iraq and Palestine.

In an article titled 'Democratic Occupation?' columnist Salama Ni'mat, the
Washington, D.C. bureau chief for the London Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat,
"The Arab concern for … the legitimacy of Iraq's upcoming elections,
and for the representation of [Iraq's] entire political, ethnic, and religious
spectrum is outrageous. Anyone who watches what is going on could, if he did not
know the truth, almost believe that the Arab countries – which throughout their
history have never known what elections are – have become the [countries] most
keen that Iraq's upcoming elections will reflect the will of the Iraqi people,
with all its elements – and will particularly [reflect the will of] the Sunni
minority that in Saddam Hussein's day was, for well-known reasons no one even
questioned, [considered] a 'majority.' .....

'What Prevents Arab Regimes from Holding Free Elections is Fear of the Will of the Peoples'

"It is well and good for the Arabs to demand the right of political
representation for the Sunni Arabs out of concern for them in the face of the
tyranny of the other Iraqi groups and out of concern for national unity and the
ideal relative representation. But we do not understand why this concern does
not apply to the many Arab countries that do not permit their minorities to
announce their existence, let alone their right to [political] representation.

"Although the Taliban's regime of darkness has become history, and
Saddam Hussein sits in his cell awaiting trial on charges of war crimes and
crimes against humanity, the Arab regimes still act as if nothing has happened.
Further, [they act] as if history is not happening as long as they do not
acknowledge its existence and do not announce it in the papers and on the
television channels, [all of] which they control. Can anybody ask the Arab
League why the media in occupied Iraq and Palestine enjoy freedom under the
occupation, while the media in the other Arab countries do not? .....

The Iraqi Regime Is More Legitimate than Most Arab Regimes

In a similar vein, Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, former editor of the London
Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat and now director-general of Al-Arabiyya
TV, wrote in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat:
"Some of the members sitting at the
conference table [at Sharm Al-Sheikh, and some] of the commentators and
conferees in the halls maintain that the Baghdad government is not legitimate.
Why? They argue that it is not elected and was appointed by the American
"This widespread view has some basis… However, the talk of the
illegitimacy of the [Iraqi] government … allows us to raise questions regarding
[the legitimacy] of most of the regimes in the region......

'This Country Will be a Platform for Liberties in the Whole Region'

Egyptian journalist Nabil Sharaf Al-Din also spoke on Al-Jazeera TV about the
future of Iraq. The following are excerpts from the program:
Nabil Sharaf
Al-Din:"We are not being fair to the current Iraqi government. Not me, nor you,
nor the other guest on this program, not even the viewers, but history will do
justice to them. These people are establishing the first democracy in the Middle
East. This country will be a platform for liberties in the whole region. In
Iraq, the days of a leader who remains on his throne until he dies are gone.
This is over. For the first time the Iraqi leader will be elected by Iraqi
Interviewer: "We've heard that [head of the Sunni Clerics Council
in Iraq] Sheik Al-Dhari says the purpose of [Sharm Al-Sheikh] summit aims to
assist the occupation…"
Nabil Sharaf Al-Din: "This Al-Dhari is a mufti of
terrorism and slaughter. This Al-Dhari is the military branch of the murderers,
the military branch of terrorism and televised slaughtering This Al-Dhari … and
his group… Sir, please…
"First and foremost, the claim that this summit was
meant to save America… When have the Arabs succeeded in resolving their own
crises and conflicts?" .....

Read the whole thing .

Saturday, December 04, 2004

Bozone Awards

I have decided to post an occasional list of those who have their head in this substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating to include otherwise brilliant people who have stupid ideas. I hope to get input from friends and other bloggers. Candidates will be chosen for past and present transgressions.

  1. John McCain and Russ Feingold for the Campaign Finance Reform fiasco.
  2. Soldiers or their friends/family posting embarassing pictures on an on-line hosting site where the media can find them.
  3. The DNC for keeping Terry McAuliffe as long as they did and considering Howard Dean as his replacement.
  4. Comcast for putting Jesse Jackson on the Board of Directors.
  5. CBS for not taking their medicine thus prolonging the illness.
  6. Jacque Chirac and the French for reasons too numerous to mention.
  7. Athletes using steroids. Women don't like seeing ex-jocks with breasts.
  8. Michael Moore fans.
  9. PETA
  10. Me, for having this dumb idea.

Friday, December 03, 2004

Bozone Layer

Bozone:The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future. Thanks to the Washington Post for this new word. Another word coined by the WaPo is Ignoranus: A person (or Government/Organization -ed)who's both stupid and an asshole.

For my list of those that qualify for this distinction I humbly submit the following:

  • The French and Jacque Chirac that thinks France is or ever was a world power. The voters of France who back a dishonest, duplicitous government that can obviously be bought and sold, to and by, the highest bidder. "Dictators Good, Democracies Bad".
  • Again the French for thinking that America really gives a rats ass whether they like us. We don't like you either. "France and the American friendship is and will continue to be a long lasting relationship. France will always be there when they need us. " You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it." —John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona
  • The UN still thinks they are relevent and Koffi Annan is an honest broker for world peace. 50 Democracies among 191 nations do not a "Human Rights and Protector of the Common Man Organization" make. Any organization that can put Libya, Syria, Yemen and other despotic regimes on the Human Rights Committee is a joke. Every "Peace Keeping" job they have taken on has been a disaster. And Darfur is basically ignored or "mediated" while thousands die. I challenge anybody to tell me of a UN success story and keep a straight face.
  • IAEA is a total joke as was the inspection regime of Blix and company.
  • Spain and others who believe that if you will just make nice and do what the terrorists ask, they will leave you alone and just pick on the Zionist pigs.
  • The Dutch who abhor the killing of a film producer by an islamic fanatic and are cracking down on muslims and immigration while condoning euthanasia for convienience and not mercy,the eugenics practiced by the Third Reich and condemned by the world 60 years ago. Kill a Van Gogh=Bad, kill handicapped infants, children and the aged=Good.
  • The new NATO Commander who wants more help from the French and Germans to train Iraqi troops. The French? "Going into a battle without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion"... Norman Schwarzkopf. ""I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." —General George S. Patton. "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." —Jacques Chirac, President of France...An old saying: Raise your right hand if you like the French.... Raise both hands if you are French.
  • Ones who believe we should pass a global test administered by the UN Security Council before acting in self-defense. Tell that to someone who has a gun pointed at them by a madman. Is it loaded? Is it a real gun? Do I wait for him to shoot before I react? Do I call a committee meeting to let those who are safe inside decide what I should do? Call the ICRC, ACLU and Human Rights Watch plus Amnesty International? Gee, what a quandry.
  • Various members of both political parties but that will need a brand new post.

I have a much bigger list of those in the bozone but will leave those for another time. I would like to say however, that those with cojones like Britain, Australia, Poland, Italy and others from the old Eastern block and Asia....Thank you for being a friend indeed and not just a friend in need.

Thursday, December 02, 2004

Global Test Revealed

We are now finding out what that Global Test was all about in the last election. The panel enjoined by the UN to come up with recommendations on how to "improve" the world body and make it more relevant and useful has come up with their report. I don't know whether this was from Kerry's playbook or he had a crib sheet on the UN's. Captain Ed has a good first impression on this work of deep thought and analysis and is well worth (as usual) a good read.

He writes:

"However, in reading the actual report, it's clear that the UN intends on stripping nations of their sovereign right to defend themselves by requiring Security Council approval for any pre-emptive military action. A read through paragraphs 188 - 198 demonstrates that the panel basically took John Kerry's global test and plugged it into their report:"

189. Can a State, without going to the Security Council, claim in these
circumstances the right to act, in anticipatory self-defence, not just
pre-emptively (against an imminent or proximate threat) but preventively
(against a non-imminent or non-proximate one)? Those who say “yes” argue that
the potential harm from some threats (e.g., terrorists armed with a nuclear
weapon) is so great that one simply cannot risk waiting until they become
imminent, and that less harm may be done (e.g., avoiding a nuclear exchange or
radioactive fallout from a reactor destruction) by acting earlier.
190. The
short answer is that if there are good arguments for preventive military action,
with good evidence to support them, they should be put to the Security Council,
which can authorize such action if it chooses to. If it does not so choose,
there will be, by definition, time to pursue other strategies, including
persuasion, negotiation, deterrence and containment - and to visit again the
military option.
191. For those impatient with such a response, the answer
must be that, in a world full of perceived potential threats, the risk to the
global order and the norm of non-intervention on which it continues to be based
is simply too great for the legality of unilateral preventive action, as
distinct from collectively endorsed action, to be accepted. Allowing one to so
act is to allow all.
196. It may be that some States will always feel that they have the
obligation to their own citizens, and the capacity, to do whatever they feel
they need to do, unburdened by the constraints of collective Security Council
process. But however understandable that approach may have been in the cold war
years, when the United Nations was manifestly not operating as an effective
collective security system, the world has now changed and expectations about
legal compliance are very much higher.
197. One of the reasons why States
may want to bypass the Security Council is a lack of confidence in the quality
and objectivity of its decision-making. The Council’s decisions have often been
less than consistent, less than persuasive and less than fully responsive to
very real State and human security needs. But the solution is not to reduce the
Council to impotence and irrelevance: it is to work from within to reform it,
including in the ways we propose in the present report.

If this is what we have to look forward to in way of reforming the UN, let it die a natural death and we can look forward to a film "The Dead Debating Society" starring Koffi Annan and his son.