I normally don't post YouTube videos (actually, this is the first), but I heard this on Bill Bennet's Morning in America show on either Thursday or Friday (can't remember - too tired).
Warning - In the traditional Patton style, there is profanity, but the message is excellent.
Not really having the time to blog now that the weather has warmed up and yard work has commenced, let’s instead take a look at some of the headlines from this increasingly strange world of ours…
Virginia Governor May Close Loophole
Virginia's governor said Tuesday he may be able to close the loophole that allowed a mentally ill Virginia Tech student to acquire the guns he used to kill 32 classmates and faculty last week.
While I think that this needs to be done for the public safety, I also think that this is going to meet some opposition. Why, you ask? Just think of the outcry if mental health records are now going to be part of a public record. Instead of a safety issue, it will become a privacy issue.
Iran Arrests 300 ‘Insufficiently Veiled’ Women
Break out the burkas!! Iran is now cracking down on women (and men) that the mullahs consider to be under-dressed (or perhaps, out of uniform). Police are enforcing the regulations. It’s amazing to me that the National Organization of Women have not commented on these types of actions against and/or repressions of women’s rights (at least to my knowledge).
Al-Qaida Group Claims Killing of 9 GIs in Iraq
Anyone who thinks that Al-Qaida is gone should realize that they are merely biding their time to strike again.
The Case for a Global Carbon Tax
The (Bush) administration had several narrow-minded and callous reasons for rejecting Kyoto, but among its main arguments was that the accords did not include developing countries and thus were ineffective. To understand why that is correct, consider one simple statistic. During the Kyoto time frame (that is, by 2012), China and India will build almost 800 new coal-fired power plants. The combined CO2 emissions from those plants will be five times the total reductions in CO2 mandated by the accords.
Finally, someone has pointed out that one of the reasons that the Kyoto Accords was rejected was because of China and India. While cutting down CO2 emissions would be a good thing for everyone (not just because of “Global Warming”), the author correctly points out that these CO2 emissions come from coal, which by itself has a whole host of environmental problems. What the author gets wrong is that the US is supposed to get China and India to not build coal-fired power plants. And that will be difficult because China and India are trying to build their economies the fastest (and cheapest) way possible. The author’s idea is to implement a global carbon tax to reign in these countries. I wonder if Al is listening…
Kim Basinger Hires Security for Daughter
After hearing the daughter’s father (none other than Alec Baldwin) rant on a voice mail, who can blame her? Oh yeah, Rosie defended Alec’s rant – go figure? One angry person defending another… And speaking about Rosie…
To which I ask – What took so long?
I’ll be working on a long post, so it might be a week or two before the next post. This one is a continuation of Energy Independence, which was posted over a year ago. It’s a subject worth revisiting considering the events and topics of the past year (Global Warming, the Middle East, Environmentalism, Energy, and so on).
Behind the curve again, but I really wanted to see how the reactions of the media, Congress, and the public would be to President Bush's speech in which he laid out plans for Iraq before I threw in my 2 1/2 cents worth in a long post...
Last week, President Bush announced that there would some 22,000 troops sent to Iraq to stabilize the region and to assist the Iraqis in securing their country. Is this too little, too late? Many people out there think that this could be the case, and that opinion includes all the political spectrum - left, right, conservative, liberal, and everyone in between. One poll stated 60% opposed, and another stated 70%.
In many respects, it depends on how the troops are deployed, and what "Rules of Engagement" (ROE) they would have to follow. Considering that the previous ROE handicapped our troops in protecting themselves and restricted what they could do, the new ROE is a welcome relief. But our troops will still need to watch their backs as the media & arm-chair generals second guess every move that they make & every round they fire while ducking sniper fire & IED explosions.
I've stated in previous posts that I am not thrilled that we are in Iraq, but in some respects, it was inevitable that the United States would be drawn into the Middle East in some sort of prolonged military action. What!?! No, I'm not kidding, but very serious. Lest you forget, the United States is extremely concerned about the stability of the Middle East. Besides the new terrorist concerns, there is still the energy sources of the Middle East that the economy of the United States (and the majority of the world) depend upon. Of course, this is only one person's opinion, but bear with me.
Those of you may remember that in 1979, the Shah of Iran fled the country as Islamic revolutionists established the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Shah ended up in the United States for treatment of cancer, and the newly established Iranian government demanded that the Shah be extradited to Iran for trial and execution. This led to the takeover of the United States Embassy in Tehran as the United States refused to hand over the dying Shah. A rescue operation was mounted By President Carter, but it failed miserably. On January 20, 1981, twenty minutes after the newly elected President Reagan's inaugural address, the hostages were released after having spent 444 days in captivity.
Iran was having other problems besides worrying about what President Reagan would do about the hostages. Iraq's Saddam Hussein, seeing the political turmoil in Iran and sensing weakness, attacked Iran in September 1980. The land war was extremely brutal, with massive casualties being incurred on both sides due to chemical weaponry and human wave attacks. Also, Iran and Iraq both attacked shipping in the Persian Gulf, and the United States conducted military operations in order to protect the shipping of neutral nations as well as that of United States concerns. The war between Iran & Iraq lasted 8 years, and set up the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq 2 years later.
The Iran/Iraq war devastated the economies of both countries. According to Wikipedia, Kuwait heavily financed Iraq in the war with Iran in the amount of a $14 Billion loan. Iraq was not in a position to repay the loan, and Kuwait was not going to forgive the debt. Wikipedia further states:
Iraq's civil and military debt was higher than its state budget. On the other hand, with its vast oil reserves, Kuwait was regarded as one of the world's wealthiest and most economically stable countries. The Iraqi government clearly realized that by occupying Kuwait, it will be able to solve its financial problems. Due to its relatively small size, Kuwait was seen by Baghdad as an easy target.
Thus, Iraq invaded Kuwait as a move calculated to erase its debts, and secure the revenue generated by the Kuwaiti oil fields. Of another concern would be an expanded access to the Persian Gulf through port facilities.
Saudi Arabia was understandably nervous with potentially hostile Iraqi troops on its border. Armed with a United Nations resolution and the Saudi government's blessing, a United States led coalition began deploying to Saudi Arabia to defend Saudi Arabia from invasion and to drive Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
It was during this time that Osama bin Laden, a seasoned leader of Mujahideen from Afghanistan, offered the services of his organization to the Saudi government to repel any invasion by the Iraqi forces. He was turned down as the Saudi government went with the United States led coalition. Wikipedia goes on to say:
Bin Laden considered this a treacherous deed. He believed that the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. After speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops he was quickly forced into exile to Sudan and on April 9, 1994 his Saudi citizenship was revoked....Shortly afterwards, the movement that came to be known as al-Qaeda was formed.
So now at the end of the first Gulf War, we have three known enemies in the Middle East: Iraq (for driving them from Kuwait), Iran (for military activities during the Iran/Iraq War), and al-Qaeda (for defiling the Islamic homeland). A dangerous mix, indeed...
During the time leading up to September 11, 2001, Iraq's Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at the world by violating numerous United Nation resolutions, genocide via chemical weapons, etc... In 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing occurred, which was financed by al-Qaeda. Iran, I believe, was quietly funding terrorist organizations like Hamas to provide distraction from it's own agenda of developing nuclear weapons and this missiles to deliver them. Various terrorist attacks such as those on the USS Cole in 2000, nightclubs frequented by US servicemen, and bombings of US embassies around the world were largely ignored even though there were casualties. That was about to change...
September 11, 2001 changed everything about how the Middle East was viewed, especially when linked to terrorism. No longer could these violent acts be swept under the rug as before - the attacks had come to our neighborhood. The War on Terrorism had begun.
Fast forward to today's events: The United States is in Iraq, having replaced Saddam Hussein's dictatorship with a fledgling democracy. Iran is saber-rattling with the threat of developing nuclear weapons and has it's eye on Iraq. And al-Qaeda is in the background, quietly planning the next attack.
So here's the bottom line:
The United States must succeed in Iraq, i.e., to leave Iraq with a fully functioning government able to defend itself from enemies within and outside of its borders. There are several reasons why the above must be achieved:
1) National and international pride and credibility. There, I've said it. For a superpower to enter into an engagement such as this and not complete the job destroys our credibility with the international community. Being defeated in an effort that we claim to be at the core of our country, i.e., the pursuit of freedom and self-determination, will render the US as a 2nd rate country with a cap pistol.
2) If the US does not succeed, this country will be perceived by our enemies as being weak. That will embolden terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda to redouble their efforts to disrupt the activities of this country (private and governmental) through increasing attacks on US assets in both international and domestic locations.
3) Iran chomping at the bit to take over Iraq (or at least make it a puppet government) is a frightening prospect. If they succeed, this action would further destabilize the Middle East. It's bad enough that Iran has nuclear ambitions and an apocalyptic leader stating that another country/people should be wiped off the face of the earth. But could you image the territory and natural resources that Iran would then control? If you thought gas prices were bad last summer, get ready for some severe pricing increases both here and abroad. And the rest of the Middle Eastern countries would be forced to cater to Iran's will.
4) We've already seen Sunni and Shiite violence under these conditions, but could you imagine if there were absolutely no authority, no law, no government for keeping the peace? Civilian casualty counts would skyrocket as religious fighting would increase by leaps and bounds. The killing fields of Cambodia come to mind...
5) Terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda could find homes in which to establish training camps. This would allow them to plan, plot, and train in relative peace & security to inflict casualties upon the rest of the world.
Yes, it is in all of our interests that the United States succeed in Iraq. This will mean keeping our troops there for some time, and whether or not an extra 20,000 or so will make a difference will depend on how they are deployed and the ROE that they can operate under. The United States cannot fail, not only for our sake, but for the sake of millions of people in the Middle East and the rest of the world. The real question in much of this is:
Will our politicians, our duly elected leaders, grow backbones, have the intestinal fortitude, and suck it up, i.e., put aside political agendas, to do the right thing for the United States and the rest of the world?
This was from the Christmas Eve Mallard Fillmore cartoon:
In an age in which Christians around the world are persecuted, tortured, and killed for daring to utter their Lord's name...Thank God for a Nation in which people of all religions may worship in freedom.
The country we live in, no, blessed with, is truly wonderful. This nation of ours has freedoms that most of the world does not enjoy. One of those is the freedom to worship (or not) according to your conscience. However, there are those who want to force you to bow to a black rock in the middle of a foreign land five times a day. If you don't, then your life is worth nothing.
I watched the Glenn Beck special in which Islamic Extremism was featured. The images presented in this program as created by the Muslim clergy, news, and entertainment media were most disturbing. It's not easy to watch crowds being whipped into a frenzy, chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." Nor is it reassuring that people considered to be "infidels" are not considered to be people, but must be killed wherever they are found. And let's not talk about what they really think of the Jewish people and Israel simply because it is so dehumanizing as to be ridiculous.
What bothers me the most is that our media ignores the reality of this threat. We do not hear of or read about very often the anti-American & anti-Israeli rhetoric, calling for the destruction of our respective countries. Nor is it brought to the forefront that they truly hate us with all of their hearts, and wish nothing but death for us.
This hate runs deep. Talking will not solve our differences. This is a belief system that does not have room for compromise, not even for slight differences within their own religion. Otherwise, why are the Shiites and Sunnis killing each other in Iraq? If it were otherwise, the word "tolerance" would be used, not abused.
And yet, there are those who think that the United States should leave Iraq, ignore the terrorist threat of radical Islam, and bury this country's head in the sand. Indeed, they wish to withdraw American influence from the world and reduce this country's status in the world to that of a third-rate nation instead of the superpower that this country truly is. I thought that Bill Whittle in his essay, Power, expressed it best:
Those that would have us disarm, withdraw, apologize and retreat make the assumption that by removing American Power from the world, the planet will become a harmonious village of diversity and mutual respect. Remove American capitalism, and the world’s people will trade solar cars for indigenous beads, our European moral betters will hand over their cash to the third world until all are perfectly equal, and everyone will live in a sustainable ecological paradise. Remove American cultural power and Britney will be replaced with Beethoven, and an exquisite and reasonably priced Pate de Foi Gras Existentialist Meal can be had at a corner drive-in where the former McDonald’s once stood.
This is utter nonsense. It has never been true for a single page of the history of the Damned Human Race. There has never -– never –- been a day in human history when some form of power has not flooded the world, or competed to do so; and those times when the power was most one-sided reveal themselves to be the times of greatest relative peace, stability, and advancement of that quaint notion known as civilization.
This is not merely a European construct. We see this iron rule in Inca and Aztec histories in South America, in Shaka’s Zulu nation, in Chinese empires and Japanese Shogunates, Native American tribal relations, and wherever else we turn our eyes.
The idea that all would be well if only America would retreat from the world and stay at home is a pernicious and seductive one. It appeals not only to those that hunger after the freedom to do mischief in our absence as it does to our natural sense of isolationism. It has been the mantra of communists, totalitarians and elitists of every vile stripe for well over a hundred years. It is utterly and completely wrong. Political power has never been removed from the world -– it has only been replaced. And so our choice –- now pay attention you No Blood For Oil types -– is not between power and no power. It is a choice only of what kind of power will fill that vacuum. Chinese? Russian? European? We have seen all of these before. The horrors they have inflicted, with far less absolute power than the US wields, do not leave me pining for those alternatives. Someone is going to be the world power, or tear the world apart fighting for it. And no matter how hard we may wish it, the winner will not be a Blindfolded Jury of Archangels.
And yet, we blunder on down a path that leads to self-destruction. Our media and politicians make excuses for Islamic terrorists, thinking that they are misunderstood and that we, as a country, need to understand why they hate us. That way, we can change so that they will "like us," and will stop the killing.
Unfortunately, the killing has been going on for centuries, and will not stop anytime soon. A religion that goes ballistic over cartoons and cannot stand scrutiny is a religion that doesn't need excuses, but accountability for it's actions and justification for its existence. To state that it is a religion of peace and yet foment violence against non-believers is hypocritical in the extreme.
A famous American said in a speech:
"We, the American People… find ourselves in the peaceful possession of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us…We toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of them -- they are a legacy bequeathed us, by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now lamented and departed race of ancestors. Theirs was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves, us, of this goodly land; and to uprear upon its hills and its valleys, a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; 'tis ours only to transmit these, the former, unprofaned by the foot of an invader…to the latest generation that fate shall permit the world to know. This gratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, and love for our species in general, all imperatively require us faithfully to perform.
"How then shall we perform it? -- At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? -- Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." - Abraham Lincoln, Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, January 27, 1838.
Whether we like it or not, I believe that the Islamic terrorists are going to do their damnest to make this into a religious war from whatever it can be called now. They will use the classic good vs. evil argument, an us-vs.-them conflict in the name of a jihad (religious war, for those of you in Rio Linda). They will plot, plan, and execute attacks that will cause large numbers of casualties. And the elites idiots among us will wring their hands crying, "We don't understand! We were talking!" Understand this, you Brie-eaters - there are people in the world that want to kill you just for the reason that you exist!! And we still seem to pursue the idiotic mantra of appeasement to those who wish nothing more than to destroy our country and subjugate us to their religion.
I know that this isn't the traditional Christmas Eve post, but Christ stated:
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34, NIV
Slightly out of context with the passage, but it does illustrate that there will be conflict & war brought in the name of religion and belief in God & Christ. And I believe that this war has come upon us, although slowly and very low key until recently.
I do pray that I am wrong, that reason will prevail among our political leaders and those in the Middle East. That there will truly be Peace on Earth. But that will only happen if everyone decides that it will be so.
May everyone find Peace within their own hearts, and so enlighten the world.
While reading this report (I'm not done yet), it struck me that the Iraq people do not have a national identity nor a loyalty to their country. Saddam and the dictators through the years have taken care of that. The Iraq people have loyalties to their tribe, their religious sect, and their country (in that order).
The Iraqi politicians have their work cut out for them. Resolving centuries-old feuds with religious sect differences is an almost insurmountable task. Adding to the problem is that each of these different groups is not willing to compromise with any of the others. Then there are the Saddam loyalists that are lurking in the background...
The Iraq police and military do need to step up and take control of their country. How soon is the question. It does beg the question of how much training do they need - I am presuming that some of them had training & credentials under Saddam's regime, although the question of loyalty does pop up. And there is no question that these policemen and soldiers have taken far more casualties than the US military as a result of terrorist activities.
The bottom line is that none of this is going to happen overnight. While the US can kick butt militarily, it's after that battle is won that the real war, the political one, must be fought and won as well. My question is: Will the politicians, both Iraqi and US, have the wherewithal to get the job done?
This is what I think on a few choice subjects...
The War in Iraq:
When it was announced that the United States was giving Iraq's Saddam Hussein an ultimatum in response to the non-compliance of UN resolutions, I really didn't like the implications. Going into Iraq without UN support, i.e., alone, was not the right thing to do. I was concerned that the second Bush was going to do what the first Bush didn't do (and was severely criticized for) - get rid of Saddam Hussein. While the intelligence at the time supported the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had too much time to bury or otherwise get rid of his WMD arsenal. However, as I've posted here and on numerous comments on other blogs, the United States cannot leave Iraq without a self-sustaining government - the danger of Iraq descending into chaos and taking the region with it is too great.
The War on Terrorism:
As stated in several previous posts, negotiation with terrorists should never be an option. They should be found and prosecuted with every means at the disposal of the United States government and the governments of the world. And it can be done if the politicians get out of the way...
War in General:
War is the last resort after diplomacy has failed, and should be avoided, but not at all costs. Giving away everything you believe in just for the sake of peace is a deal with the devil, and will not, in the long run, achieve the desired result of peace. War is unhealthy for all the participants, both for soldiers and civilians alike. I do not want war, nor do I promote it - I just know that in some situations it cannot be avoided.
Immigration:
Illegal immigration is a blight on our country, and a subject that politicians would rather avoid. Just mentioning this topic raises many feelings that are not, shall we say, are very civilized. I do not have a problem with people immigrating to this country legally, but to reward those that come here by illegal means and then defend their actions grates against my law-abiding nature. It also gets me that illegal immigrants are eligible for Social Security benefits, driver's licenses, & other governmental services (your tax dollars!!), and the politicians just give the wink & a nod & ignore this problem.
Michigan's Proposal 2:
Michigan's Proposal 2 states:
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS BASED ON THEIR RACE, GENDER, COLOR, ETHNICITY, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR CONTRACTING PURPOSES
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
* Ban public institution from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institution affected by this proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.
* Prohibit public institutions from discriminating against groups or individuals due to their gender, ethnicity, race, color or national origin. (A separate provision of the state constitution already prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.)
On the surface, this looks like a good idea. I have problems with quotas wrapped in the guise of affirmative action. Everyone should have an equal bite at the apple, but the deciding factor should be on the person's ability & merit, not race or gender. Unfortunately, what has happened is not fair and is patronizing to those people that the program is supposedly helping. In an earlier post, I wrote the following of what Martin Luther King had envisioned for the Negro people:
His vision looked for the Negro people to stand side by side with the White people as equals, and to get there by self-sufficiency, not by a government mandate. He wanted his people to rise up to their potential, to stand on their own two feet, not by some law or subsidy. Patronage of the Negro was not his vision, but to join the human race as equals to any other ethnic group, to enjoy the fruits of hard labor through equal opportunity, and not through quotas.
It doesn't really matter if you are dealing with a used car salesman, a North Korean dictator, or an al Qaeda terrorist, negotiation relies on two things: If all parties are willing to give up something to get what they want, and if they are willing to keep their word. Which of the previous three people do you think you could strike a deal with that would stick?
There are so many people out there that are repeating the line "Why can't we all get along?" and yet never stop to think about why that is. They believe that everyone is just like them, rational and willing to talk things over to the point of working out whatever problem there is between them, and sticking to the agreement. The fatal flaw in this line of thought is that everyone isn't like them, isn't trustworthy, and will do theirdamnest to break any agreement at the earliest point in time when they can get away with it and it is most advantageous to them.
Need examples? OK, here goes...
North Korea snookered ol' Bill into giving them nuclear technology, and then broke their promise & built a nuclear bomb. Radial Islamic terrorists will break their word to all infidels because their interpretation of their religion will allow it (talk to Israel on their negotiation history with any of the multitudes of Arab countries around them). From the historical perspective, there's always poor Neville Chamberlain who gave away another country in a futile attempt to keep Nazi Germany from going to war (and we know how that turned out). Last, Iran's nuclear program is on & off the table so much that I've lost track of where they are at, but would you trust their president to keep his word on anything dealing with the restriction of nuclear weapons development in Iran? Not with him promising the end of Israel first and the rest of the world second to create an Islamic-controlled world...
Is there any question that this is why diplomacy, negotiations, and compromise will not work in the long run with Islamic radicals/terrorists such as al Qaeda & Hezbollah, countries such as North Korea & Iran, and a host of other untrustworthy nutjobs from around the world? Not in my mind.
Yes, I do agree that peace should be given a chance to work, but you had better be prepared and have the resolve to go to war. Otherwise, we might as well just give up & pledge allegiance to Allah, put the women in burkas, scrap the Constitution & Bill of Rights, and put all of the "undesirables" according to Islamic law (such as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, homosexuals, Feminists, free-thinkers & other non-Islamics) to death.
And neither, apparently, do good wishes, either...
I'm writing about how our buddy Bill "I didn't have sex with that woman" Clinton gave a reported $1 Billion in technology, information, and materials to North Korea in exchange for nothing but a promise to use all that stuff to help the people of North Korea. So now North Korea has the bomb, a missile to deliver that bomb, and still has people starving in the streets. What a bargain!!
What's really disturbing is that Iran and North Korea are the remaining two countries of the infamous "Axis of Evil." With the Useless Nations potentially cracking down on North Korea, don't you think that Iran just might buy the bomb from their buddies? I do, and their first target will be Tel Aviv (that's in Israel for those people in Rio Linda). What happens after that will be anyone's guess.
At least they'll have another exhibit to display at the Clinton Presidential Library - A picture of smoking ruins under a mushroom cloud. It should display nicely next to that blue dress with the stain on the shoulder...
As reported by MSNBC.com, the Pope met with Muslim diplomats earlier today to mend relations after his remarks about Islam during a September 12 speech at Regensburg University. This is the 4th time that the Pope has tried to defuse the situation.
The remarks that got the Islamic clerics & "others" upset were the words of a Byzantine emperor who characterized some of the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad as "evil and inhuman," particularly "his command to spread by the sword the faith." Pope Benedict XVI has since said that the comments were taken out of context, and he regretted that Muslims were offended. The reaction by the aforementioned offended Muslims has included protests, violence, and murder. The most publicized of these was the execution of a nun in Somolia who forgave her attackers as she was dying.
This is absolutely incredible to me! As stated in the "Points to Ponder" scroller to the right, Why must I tolerate your intolerance? Why is it that if there is the slightest criticism of Islam, these people go ballistic and start running amok? Worse yet, why must these people be excused from their actions? Why does the world as a whole put up with these idiots?
It can't be on account of it's a criticism of a religion. Christians and Jews certainly don't get a pass on this - I think of all the criticism offered in the media of these religions (cartoons and other items bordering on the obscene), and what the Mohammed cartoons showed was extremely mild. Israel certainly didn't get a pass on their little war with Hezbollah.
Actually, it might be a little more sinister than what one might think. I am starting to believe that the world, through the Useless Nations, would rather see the civilized West (Europe and the US) bear the brunt of the Islamic terror attacks. Many of the countries in the UN are third-world dictatorships that really don't want their people to have any freedoms at all. If the Islamic terrorists keeps the West busy chasing them, then maybe the West will leave them alone. What they don't realize is that if the West falls, or enacts an isolationist-type policy, then they just might find these jokers in their respective laps.
And yet no one really seems to understand the danger that this type of radical Islam puts the world into. I remember a World History class some 30 years ago in High School. The topic was Islam and how it shaped the Middle East. The teacher stated the following:
Islam is a religion of conquest - it was spread by subjugation. The soldiers would ride into a villiage and wipe out any resistance. Afterward, they would gather up all the villiagers, and separated the leaders. The Imam riding with the soldiers would then ask them one by one if they would accept Islam as their religion and Allah as their god. If not, the leader would be forced to kneel, and he was beheaded in front of the assembled villiagers. This process usually didn't last very long as the villiage saw which way this was going, so they would take vows to accept this new religion. Afterward, they would ride to the next villiage and repeat the "conversion" of the infidels.
This is the radical Islamic mindset - convert or die! This is their mantra - this is their mission. And with the radical Iranian president hell-bent on nukes, I really wonder if the world hasn't gone mad in ignoring this threat.
Where is this all headed? Well, I can certainly state that it shouldn't begin with apologies for statements that are historical in nature. I stand by the following statement made in a previous post:
People who apologise for, make excuses for, or otherwise try & appease these nutcases are only making things worse. Firm, decisive action will eventually need to be taken against these promoters of violence. The question is, who's going to do it? The moderate Islamic sects, or the rest of the world. The first is preferable, the second is not.
Indeed, who is going to rein in these purveyors of the "religion of peace"? I certainly hope that the US doesn't get sucked into this alone.
By now, everyone is aware of the Pope's comments concerning Islam, and the radical Islamic reaction condemning his statements. Considering that he was quoting someone else to prove some points (and the radicals proving the points for him), the fallout is expected. Of course, the Pope has issued his apology, and it is being rejected by a few of the more radical Imams.
While I realize that not all Muslims are not as radical as the media (and others) portray them to be, one does wonder why the moderate don't tell the radicals to shut up. Perhaps they are afraid of getting their heads chopped off - after all, if the radicals don't have a Jew, Christian, or other infidel to kill, they'll find a Muslim not of their particular sect to kill (at least in the Middle East).
So now these Islamic idiots are using the Pope's historical references to call for more violence against whomever they "feel" that has offended them in the name of their religion. How pathetic is it that they must grasp for excuses to cause harm to their fellow man to "defend their faith." Are they not secure in the belief that Allah is all powerful and can defend himself?
On a deeper point, what is really being said here? The Pope made the reference that belief in a religion (referencing Islam) must not be forced upon a person, i.e., freedom of choice of a religion. History has shown Islam was forced upon conquered lands (and yes, I'm aware that various Christian groups have done the same at various periods of history). And yet the modern equivalent is being demonstrated and stated by the radical Imams and other "religious" terrorist leader - convert to Islam (our sect) or die. And yet, there are people who just don't see that caving in to the "join us or die" proclamation goes against several of the basic freedoms that we enjoy in this country.
People who apologise for, make excuses for, or otherwise try & appease these nutcases are only making things worse. Firm, decisive action will eventually need to be taken against these promoters of violence. The question is, who's going to do it? The moderate Islamic sects, or the rest of the world. The first is preferable, the second is not.
With the reactions to the Mohammed cartoons and now this, is there now any question that this is not a "religion of peace", at least as practiced by some sects? If anything, these radical elements are pushing the world toward a religious war, not the other way around. What's even more scary is that they believe that they will win, even though the world could be destroyed in the process!! At least that's what I see if Iran's radical leadership gets a working atomic device, sticks it on a missle & fires it at 1) Israel, 2) the Vatican, and/or 3) anybody else that's an infidel. Oh well, at least they'll get their virgins...
This is the fifth and final part of a series that will explore what needs to be done in order to defeat terrorism.
With the previous concepts in place (Unity, Intelligence, Security, & Logistics), it is now possible to find where these people are, how they operate, where they are getting their supplies, and how best to protect ourselves from them with the resolve to carry this effort through to the end.
Will this effort be easy? No, it will not. It will also not be without controversy if any of the post-9/11 political garbage is of any indication. However, this must be done if we, as a country, expect to provide our children a safe country in which to grow up in.
It will also take the efforts of more than just this country. It will take the efforts of all nations that want to eliminate terrorism from the world. While the Useless Nations and Coffee Anonymous have sat back and twiddled their thumbs while the number of terrorist-related atrocities increased, it will be up to the United States to formulate alliances, coalitions, and agreements to combat this threat to the world. The US will need to take this leadership role because, quite frankly, I am unaware of any other country either in a position or willingn to do so.
Will innocent people be put into harm's way? Yes, it will, and that is regrettable. However, as demonstrated recently by Hezbollah, this is their modus operandi, i.e., blend in with the population and hide behind the innocent to make the cost of eliminating them too high.
Last, it will be a long, drawn out struggle to root out these people who cause havoc. They run & hide wherever they find a haven to spread their poison among the disaffected. And that is perhaps the greatest horror of all - turning the innocent into their weapons with the promise of a better afterlife.
Once the terrorists are found, what to do with them? Those that survive the inevitable firefights should be tried before a court of the country of their birth (providing that country is an ally). If they are from a terrorist nation, then perhaps a trial similar to the Nuremburg Tribunals would be in order. Those found guilty would not be executed, but sentenced to life breaking big rocks into smaller rocks into pebbles into sand into dust... I have no desire in creating martyrs for their cause.
I know that this series is far from ideal, and there are holes & gaps that would need to be filled for this effort to be practical & effective. However, something must be done to defeat terrorism. Good thoughts, ignoring the problem, or burying our collective heads in the sand will not make this threat go away - it will make it worse in the long run.
Write or call the candidates up for election in your area, and let them know of your concerns with the terrorist threat. Tell them that you expect them to answer your questions and that they will not only need to earn your vote this election, but the next as well - they will be held accountable for their actions or inactions. Ignore your party affilliation and vote for the person that you believe will get the job done. There's less than 60 days to the mid-term elections, but every election is important as is every vote.
Sitting at my desk at another plant on assignment five years ago, I was finishing up some report when someone came in the office and announced that a plane had hit one of the World Trade Center buildings. I really didn't think much of it at the time, and thought that some joy riding pilot in a Cessna got too close to one of the buildings, got caught in an updraft, and slammed into the building.
I finished up the report, and went out on the floor to check on the project's progress, and I happened to see one of the TVs the company had set up for internal communications. Someone had put the feed from one of the national networks on the network, and I saw the WTC burning. I was stunned for two reasons - the first was that it was such a clear day, so how could someone accidentally hit one of the buildings. The second was that I just couldn't understand how a small plane could cause so much damage. That's when I saw the second plane hit...
Dumbfounded, I suddenly realized that the first plane was not a Cessna or other small plane, but a full-sized, passenger-carrying jet. I next understood that this was deliberate, because there was absolutely no way that two planes could hit the WTC buildings on the same clear day. Then there was the overwhelming sense of sadness, grief, hopelessness as the dawning of a new thought came to mind...
Terrorism, unlike anything that we have ever known, had come to America.
I watched, horrified along with the rest of the country, as the towers came down mere minutes from each other. I couldn't understand that at the time - this was the last thing that I had expected. I had known that the Empire State Building had been struck by a B-25 bomber and had survived with minimal damage - why not a modern building? But that was not the case here - too big, too much fuel, too much heat - and the towers collapsed. And I wept openly as I watched the plumes of dust rise over the island of Manhattan.
Later, the news of the Pentagon being hit and the plane going down in Pennsylvania came across the news, but everyone was in shock. Who could have done this, and why? Questions abounded, and answers were few in coming. Wild speculation and rumors ran through the plant unchecked. And everyone was afraid...
Where was the next attack going to happen, and when? Everyone struggled to make sense of the madhouse that the country had become. Nothing was the same, nor would it ever be again. And the skies went silent except for the roar of fighter jets on patrol.
I feared for the future of the country, and of that of my son's. What kind of a world was he going to grow up in? How much different was his childhood and adult life going to be than mine? The future had suddenly become so very uncertain and frightening for all of us.
The American people are now at war, not with a nation, but with an ideology that hates this country and all of it's citizens. These people live, think, sleep, and eat with the thought of killing us and destroying this country that we live in simply because they do not like us for the freedoms we enjoy (especially the one about freedom to worship). And their reward for doing so is their version of heaven. And knowing all of this, there are those who still believe that these fanatics can be negotiated with.
In the past five years, we observed the political parties pull together like most of us had never known before, only to watch political sniping and power plays take the place of securing this country from foreign terrorists once & for all. The planes are flying again, but at great inconvenience to all. Terrorist attacks have taken place and were prevented around the world, but we all know it's a matter of time before another attack happens here.
What does the future hold? That is unknown to all except the Creator. But I am hopeful, both in this country and my fellow Americans. We have proven in the past that we are a resilient people, able to rise and meet any challenge before us. I can only pray that this will be the case as our new enemy is as patient, cunning, and vicious as any beast of the field. And we must remember that as we observe this most solemn day.
This is the fourth part of a series that will explore what needs to be done in order to defeat terrorism.
Ask any general what will win a war in the long run, and he will state supplies. Sure, guns & soldiers win the battles, but you do need the rounds to fire and food to feed the troops. The recent Israeli and Hezbollah conflict highlighted the fact that supplies and funding of Hezbollah by Iran made this conflict possible. Hezbollah received funding and arms from Iran for years. If Iran had not done this, Hezbollah would have dried up long ago & blown away with the next strong wind.
Here's what needs to happen to reign in or limit terrorists in what they can do:
But this might not be enough. I read in a magazine (Time or Newsweek) about how al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are using the drug trade to fund their activities. Of course, this is a cash business and rarely are the funds stashed away in a bank.
Another alternative, although radical, is the concept of total war, which was demonstrated in World War II. This meant that anything that the enemy had that could be used to support their war effort directly or indirectly was a target. Factories, railroads, telephone exchanges, military installations and civilians were all targeted. However, the total war concept cannot be used with the terrorist organizations or countries to cut off these supplies. No, we are far too civilized for that, and unfortunately, very impractical for battling an enemy that does not call any one nation home...
Instead, determine where the terrorists keep their supplies & weapons, and destroy or confiscate these items. Hard to do, yes, impossible, no. But it beats carpet bombing nations wholesale to get rid of caches of weapons and supplies hidden by a few.
Is this simplistic? Yes, it is. Are there complications? You bet!
Complications range from the Useless Nations to our own politicians, special interest groups, and media hampering & sabotaging current efforts to find and stop money, weapons, and supplies from reaching our enemies. Countries in the UN are not all supportive of the war against terrorists, and covertly support them. This means that the UN may not be any help to anyone anytime soon. Our own politicians and their ilk are too much into hating & blaming the current administration and focusing on the upcoming elections to be anywhere near as effective as they should be in protecting the American people.
Since we cannot do much with the UN, do this instead. Let your representative know that they need to earn your vote this election. Let them know of your concerns with finding terrorist money, weapons, and supplies. Have them tell you of their plans to combat this threat to this country, and hold them to their word. This is what our form of government is about - electing people who will get the job done, and holding our elected officials accountable for their actions or inactions on issues that are important to this country.
Merriam-Webster defines war as:
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war; 2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end.
I have heard various people, politicians, and talk-show hosts maintain that the United States is not in a state of war, whether it was against Saddam's Iraq or the threat of al-Quada. According to the definition above, they are technically correct. However, I don't think that the people affected by September 11, 2001 would agree with that kind of logic.
The fact is that a terrorist organization hijacked 4 planes, crashing them into buildings occupied by ordinary citizens, our military headquarters, and possibly the seat of our government. Their aim was to cause as many casualties as possible, and create chaos within our government and financial institutions. Another intent of their actions was to inconvenience every citizen that they did not kill by interupting the airlines, and increasing the security measures that were implemented after these attacks.
There is no doubt in my mind that the United States and/or the Western world is in a state of war with a movement that has no country in which to call home (although there are countries that support them). The definition that Merriam-Webster uses does not adequately describe the state of conflict that the modern world finds itself in. War is traditionally fought between two or more nations - today's war is now being fought between nations and groups of terrorists who are nothing more than thugs and hate groups.
These terrorists range from disgruntled political groups to religious zealots (and I think some of them are a little of both). Hezbollah and Hamas have the mission statement to distroy Israel. I understand that al-Qaeda was originally started by bin Laden to protest the Saudi kingdom's close ties with the United States, and now supposedly has added a "religious" angle to strike against the American infidels. Radical Islamic countries (like Iran) & clerics stir up their people into religious fervors to reclaim Islamic lands and to turn the world into one of where Islamic law prevails.
There is more to the struggle against these groups than just 9/11. The United States has been attacked before by these groups. The attack on the Marine barracks and US Embassy in Beruit in 1983 has been linked to Hezbollah. The bombings of the USS Cole and other embassies, nightclubs of where US servicemen and civilians gather, and other various acts of terror not reported (because they are not spectacular enough for the evening news) are just scratching the surface of the danger and horror these groups represent.
No, this isn't a war by the dictionary definition - this is a battle, a fight to the finish, one of where it's either going to be us or them that will prevail. If they win, think of the consequences of losing all the freedoms that we enjoy in this country - freedom of speech, of religion, of dress (within reason), of trial by a jury of our peers, and other rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If we win, we keep those freedoms.
Because of this struggle to keep our way of life guaranteed by the principles that this country is founded upon, I believe that the definition of war should include the conflicts between nations (governments) and terrorist groups. This is a battle for survival, is it not? That's usually what wars are ultimately fought for - the loser loses their country and/or way of life.
And now something to ponder...
The fifth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks is less than two weeks away. Is the world a safer place? In some respects I think so. Plots have been foiled, but attacks have also been carried out against other countries. Thankfully, no other attacks have occurred here in the United States, and I pray that our law enforcement & intelligence agencies keep up their excellent work. But that is no consolation to the thousands of victims of these groups.
Take time to pause & reflect during the time leading up to 9/11, and count your blessings that we live in the greatest country on Earth, despite it's faults. We enjoy rights and freedoms that no other country even dares to grant its citizens. We enjoy standards of living that even most of our poor would be the wealthy in other countries. We have the opportunities, if we take the risks, to be able to succeed (or fail) through hard work, perseverance, and sometimes, luck. For the most part, our medical system can't be beat. So the next time you want to grouse & bitch about this country as a whole, remember the previous statements, and thank God that you live here instead of there. Because if you lived there, you wouldn't be reading this, and that's why we must win the battle (or the war) against terrorism.
This is the third part of a series that will explore what needs to be done in order to defeat terrorism.
The 9/11 Commission recommended, wisely, that the Federal government take care of these border security problems to ensure the safety of our country - Jack Kingston
I heard an interesting but disconcerting fact a couple of days ago: On the Canadian / US border, the US Border Patrol will accept over 6000 forms of identification for admittance to the United States. Who can reasonably be expected identify a valid ID from so many documents? Not your average person!!
Security of the borders is not an immigration issue. Rather, it is an obligation of our elected officials mandated by the Consititution to secure this country from its enemies. And we have enemies in spades!
Just one week ago I heard on the radio that sheriffs in Texas are warning about Middle-Eastern men learning Spanish and sneaking across the border. Is there any doubt that some of these people are terrorists? Not in my mind.
For us to be safe, the United States must regain control of its borders NOW!! It doesn't do any good to track down people if they can cross the borders almost at will in order to evade the authorities. Our elected officials must get off their collective butts and produce the funding & manpower to secure this country from maniacs who wish to do us, the citizens of this country, great harm. A few suggestions, of course...
1) Seal up the borders so that even a jack-rabbit can't get through without being observed and apprehended. Electronic surveillance only goes so far - we need people out there that can take quick & decisive action and nail these people before they can do anything.
2) To exit or enter the country, restrict the number of documents allowed from 6000 to 1. Yes, I'm talking about every US traveler to a foreign land uses a passport leave and re-enter the country. Yes, they can be expensive, but if you really want to go to Canada to smoke those Cubans, you had better get one. And most countries in the world will insist that you have one.
3) Monitor the ports, airports, and any other places of entry into this country for people and/or materials trying to sneak in. Restrictive & time-consuming - yes. Necessary in this world - I think so, considering the consequences.
4) Use the intelligence that has been gathered to protect ourselves from the plans of these terrorists. Implement new security protocols when new avenues of attack are discovered ahead of time instead of after. For instance - cockpit doors being more difficult to enter from the passenger compartment was put into place after 9/11, not before.
Now I know that I'm not a security expert, but it seems that the above should be a minimum to keep the bad guys out. At least that's what my common sense is telling me...
This is the second part of a series that will explore what needs to be done in order to defeat terrorism.
As demonstrated just this past week, intelligence can play a key role in defeating terrorist acts. The interception of terrorists with plans to bring down as many as ten planes on trans-Atlantic flights should prove the worth of such information.
Intelligence can be obtained in a variety of ways. Satellite observation, electronic signal interception (radio & Internet), banking records, phone records, and informants (among others) have all been used by this country and others in cooperation to gather intelligence on terrorist activities. This information reveals the who, what , and where of the terrorist's activities. This results in finding out who the leaders are, where they might be along with their supplies, what their plans are, and when is the best time to find them at certain places before they commit their horrific deeds.
Now before any Liberal (and other assorted moonbat) readers of this post get their panties in a twist about "illegal surveillance" and other related subjects, lets get something straight - we give the government far more information on our tax return than what they would find in any investigation of terrorist activities (unless you are a terrorist). The intelligence activities discussed here are focused on overseas phone & bank accounts, and target non-citizens of the United States, and as such, the the best of my understanding, do not fall under United States criminal codes. Past practices of intelligence gathering have been far more intrusive to the United States citizen, and some would say, Draconian in nature (think of Hoover and the Cold War). Finally, I did a post on the NSA's activities that involved communications intelligence on foreign nationals.
Just as important is the control of information that is released about what threat has been found and how it was discovered. This supplies the terrorists with knowledge so that they can change their habits or activities to avoid being discovered. Thus, the activities surrounding the gathering of information must be kept secret
Unfortunately, our media has not helped the effort in keeping intelligence activities undercover. A post written back on 2/3/06 titled Media for Who? explored this topic with events leading up to that time. Among the more recent disclosures by the media include the tracking of overseas banking records and pattern recognition of phone records. There is evidence that after this information was made public, the terrorists that were being tracked changed their habits, cleaned out their bank accounts, changed to untraceable cell phones, and disappeared.
Let's see if we can do this the smart way...
Intelligence on terrorists can be gathered without violating anyone's "rights," either real or imagined. The perfect example of this is pattern matching. Any data can be analyzed without identifying tags. If a pattern emerges, then a warrant can be obtained (if necessary) to match the data with a name/address/phone number. There are other methods, some hi-tech, some not so hi-tech, which would also provide information, but will not be presented here (how do I know you're not a terrorist?).
Intelligence can also be shared between countries. This has been done between the United States and Great Britain for years. Other countries like Pakistan have also forwarded information that has resulted in arrests & convictions.
All of the above cannot be effective if our enemy knows what we are doing. The old adage "Loose lips sink ships" is very appropriate. Our media must learn to not disclose information that can be used by the terrorists. This includes what programs our intelligence agencies are using, and what methods are being employed to obtain information. However, I begin to wonder if they will ever exercise self-control.
This is the first part of a series that will (hopefully) explore what needs to be done in order to defeat terrorism.
The first item on the list that needs to be done is establish Unity. No, this is not holding hands, chanting "Oooooommmmmm" and being one with the universe. Rather, this is having a common national direction from the citizens of the United States and the elected representatives to our Government.
I look back to the days immediately following 9/11, where both political parties and the population were united in our desire to find, punish, & destroy the terrorist organization that inflicted such damage & casualties upon this country. I wondered at that time how long that desire, that single-mindedness was going to last. I didn't have to wait for long for the political opportunists to start their misinformation and spin campaigns.
What happened? Where did the desire, the "fire in the belly" go to? I have a few thoughts on this.
In one nutshell, the Democrat Liberals want power. They are desperate to show that the current Administration is inept, and cannot bring this war to a quick and successful conclusion. Of course, the Conservative Republicans want to hold on to the power that they have, and fight back with counter-claims that the opposition doesn't have a plan, as no idea what is at stake, and is out of touch with the wishes of the common man. It does not matter what facts have been presented or proven to show that (in my opinion) the current course of action is correct, the political war continues within our government. Political infighting is costly in more than one way.
In another nutshell, the average citizen has the attention span of a gnat. Our entertainment media has conditioned us to believe that crimes can be solved in an hour, Dr. Phil can mend a relationship in ten minutes, and a new American Idol can be selected in a matter of weeks. Mention that a war against terror will last years, and there is absolutely no comprehension. "Why can't we (the US) get this done & over with?" is the most common question I hear from various people.
Another nutshell is media related. Remember the videos of the first Iraq war? How many of us were facinated by bombs dropping on a certain building or bridge? How neat & clean was that? War in recent times has been shown to be relatively bloodless and extremely high-tech. I will be one of the first people to tell you that wars are far from bloodless, and technology has just made the battlefield all that much more deadly. Again, the general public has no idea that war involves bloody death until those pictures are shown on the nightly news (or every half-hour on CNN's Headline News).
The end result of the above examples is that our attention is diverted from the goal of eliminating terrorist threats to the United States and to the world. The more attention that is given to the political arguments & sniping and to the defense of those arguments is less attention given to defeating terrorist activities. For the average citizen to not understand that this war against terrorism is real and not a TV show subtracts from the long-term will to get the job done.
The problem is that this country is not fighting against another country as in World War II, but against a shadowy, unknown adversary who does not have a country. Rather, it is an ideology that most people have either no understanding of or faulty information about. It is incomprehensible for most people to understand that there are a bunch of radical people out there that want to destroy their way of life and them even after 9/11.
Bottom line: The politicians and the citizens of this country need to understand that this enemy will not go away by themselves. We must be committed from the highest government positions to the most humble citizen to defending this country from the threat of terrorism. And that is the first step in defeating terrorism.
It is a little interesting that the United Nations is calling on the United States to intercede in the Israel / Hezbollah conflict. Why? Isn't that what they are supposed to do - intercede & be a mediator to nations or groups in conflict?
Apparently not. They have done nothing to mediate or otherwise take an active role in stopping the conflict. On the other hand, they like to send UN Peacekeepers (as observers) to these areas. And what do they do? Nothing except get themselves killed. They are not authorized to defend themselves nor to stop anyone from committing "war crimes" or some other nonsense. Indeed, in other areas of the world, these "Peacekeepers" are part of the problem. They have turned a blind eye to theft, rape, & murder, and have been known to participate in these activities. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
The real theft is by the "representatives" to the UN. Kofi Annan's son has been implicated in the "Oil for Food" scandal, and he isn't exactly clean from this incident either. Other countries have used the UN as a front for their own illicit activities. That shouldn't be surprising since most of the representatives from these third world backwater nations are representing despots, dictators, and otherwise not very nice people. How many billions of dollars have gone into the pockets of our enemies?
What is also infuriating (at least to me) is that any time a problem comes up (like the Israel / Hezbollah conflict) is that they expect the US to come riding in like the good guy in the white hat to take care of the problem after they complain and condemn the US!
Personally, I think that the US should stay out of the negotiating business altogether. Let Israel finish the job of wiping out a common enemy. If the Useless Nations wants to broker a peace, let them do it on their own if it's so damn important to them.
After all, it will be good practice for them when Iran gets the bomb, puts it on a missle, and drops it somewhere in Europe because someone published another Mohammed cartoon...
After I posted Appeasement Doesn't Work, I heard that Greta Van Susteren interviewed Madeleine Albright concerning the current Mid-East crisis, i.e., the Israeli attack on Hezbollah positions in Lebanon after Hezbollah killed & captured Israeli soldiers. A question and answer during this interview was of particular interest:
VAN SUSTEREN: How do you though negotiate or how do you — what kind of diplomatic solution could you possibly have with Hezbollah? If Hezbollah is indeed the terrorist organization, which is what the United States says it is, I mean it just seems impossible that you could ever — they could ever want anything other than the utter destruction of Israel.
ALBRIGHT: Well, what has to happen is that the government of Lebanon, the legitimate government of Lebanon begins to be able to control its own territory which it cannot do by itself. Hezbollah has to be surrounded in a way that the territory is not dangerous and that the Lebanese government is in control...
What a facinating question, and an even better response! Indeed, how do you negotiate with a terrorist faction that does not represent a country? Albright's response seems to answer that - you don't!! Only legitimate countries are to be negotiated with, not someone with an ax to grind. And this has been proven by Hezbollah's compliance (or lack thereof) to UN Security Council Resolution 1559.
UN Security Council Resolution 1559 "Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias." All other militias in Lebanon disbanded in accordance with this resolution except for Hezbollah. Hezbollah has fired rockets & conducted raids ever since this resolution was passed in 2004. Indeed, their military stockpiles and organization have grown tremendously since then. The question begs to be asked: If Hezbollah did not comply with the UN Security Council's resolution, what are the chances that they would comply with any other agreement, no matter who they make it with? Answer: They won't.
One of the other problems that I have with any type of negotiation with any terrorist organization is that by the very act of negotiating with that organization lends a certain amount of legitimacy to that organization. And that is very, very bad. If you recognize that this terrorist organization is worthy of negotiation, it is then a legitimate entity, which gives credibility to their movement, and then they are in a position to gain more power than what they should deserve. This is what has happened with Hamas, and you know where they are now - that's now a huge problem for Israel. If any direct negotiations with Hezbollah take place, then look out!
Hezbollah's (and Hamas, for that matter) have the stated goal of obliterating Israel. While some pundits say this doesn't mean a genocidal war, I doubt that the Israelis are going to give up the land that they have fought for and settled for the 50+ years of Israel's existence, and that the members of these organizations would think twice about killing Israelis. Our favorite terrorist group, al Qaeda, expands this goal to include Western society. So how do you reason with people who have the stated goal (and sole reason for existing) of destroying your country and everything you believe in by any & all means within their power? You don't, unless you want to cave in and give them everything they want (which could include the life, liberty, & happiness of you & your family).
So what is the answer? Consider these lines from the movie Swordfish:
GABRIEL: That's what I'm telling you, Stanley. We are at war.
STANLEY: War? Who are we at war with?
GABRIEL: Anyone who infringes on America's freedom. Terrorists' states, Stanley. Someone must take their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb ten. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourists, we tactically nuke an entire city. We must make terrorism so horrific that it becomes unthinkable to attack Americans.
And that is pretty well what Israel is doing. They are announcing to the world that they are tired of putting up with terrorist organizations that are a threat to them, and they will do their best to destroy or deter their activities so that anyone (terrorists or hostile countries) will think twice before conducting any type of operations against Israel. Sharing the pain ten-fold is a deterrent, whether or not you agree with it.
Consider President Bush's address to Congress shortly after the 9/11 attacks. He made the following statements during that address:
"We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network."
"Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
"...the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows."
Sounds pretty civilized, doesn't it? The problem is that the terrorists are not a civilized opponent. Consider that when they have captured American soldiers or civilians in Iraq, they are usually tortured, beheaded, and their bodies mutilated beyond recognition. They strap bombs to their children, and send them out into populated areas to blow themselves up along with whomever is around. In the cases of the USS Cole, the bombing of the Marine barracks & the US Embassy in Beruit in 1983, on 9/11 & on countless other occasions, they have proven that they are willing to sacrifice themselves to cause harm to as many people as possible, military or civilian. They do not care who they take out in the process just as long as the body count is high.
Will our leadership consider using "The Swordfish Option"? I think the answer is yes, but not until we are attacked again on our soil. And by then, it could be too late for thousands of our fellow citizens.
Now I know there are people out there that are going to flame me for being a war-monger, a hateful person, and a whole host of other names. I will state right here and now that I do not wish harm upon anyone, but I will support actions of self-defense. Think of it this way - If hornets are building a nest by your house, do you wait for someone to get stung before getting rid of the nest, or after? My action - get rid of the nest before someone gets hurt or dies from a sting.
Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Great Britain in the late 1930s, gave this speech on October 3, 1938, to Parliament in defence of the Munich Treaty. This treaty granted Germany control of the Sudetenland, a rather large part of Czechoslovakia.
The Prime Minister: Before I come to describe the Agreement which was signed at Munich in the small hours of Friday morning last, I would like to remind the House of two things which I think it very essential not to forget when those terms are being considered. The first is this: We did not go there to decide whether the predominantly German areas in the Sudetenland should be passed over to the German Reich. That had been decided already. Czechoslovakia had accepted the Anglo-French proposals. What we had to consider was the method, the conditions and the time of the transfer of the territory. The second point to remember is that time was one of the essential factors. All the elements were present on the spot for the outbreak of a conflict which might have precipitated the catastrophe. We had populations inflamed to a high degree; we had extremists on both sides ready to work up and provoke incidents; we had considerable quantities of arms which were by no means confined to regularly organised forces. Therefore, it was essential that we should quickly reach a conclusion, so that this painful and difficult operation of transfer might be carried out at the earliest possible moment and concluded as soon as was consistent, with orderly procedure, in order that we might avoid the possibility of something that might have rendered all our attempts at peaceful solution useless. . . .
. . . To those who dislike an ultimatum, but who were anxious for a reasonable and orderly procedure, every one of [the] modifications [of the Godesberg Memorandum by the Munich Agreement] is a step in the right direction. It is no longer an ultimatum, but is a method which is carried out largely under the supervision of an international body.
Before giving a verdict upon this arrangement, we should do well to avoid describing it as a personal or a national triumph for anyone. The real triumph is that it has shown that representatives of four great Powers can find it possible to agree on a way of carrying out a difficult and delicate operation by discussion instead of by force of arms, and thereby they have averted a catastrophe which would have ended civilisation as we have known it. The relief that our escape from this great peril of war has, I think, everywhere been mingled in this country with a profound feeling of sympathy.
[Hon. Members: Shame!] I have nothing to be ashamed of. Let those who have, hang their heads. We must feel profound sympathy for a small and gallant nation in the hour of their national grief and loss. [Mr. Bellenger: It is an insult to say it!]
The Prime Minister:I say in the name of this House and of the people of this country that Czechoslovakia has earned our admiration and respect for her restraint, for her dignity, for her magnificent discipline in face of such a trial as few nations have ever been called upon to meet.
The army, whose courage no man has ever questioned, has obeyed the order of their president, as they would equally have obeyed him if he had told them to march into the trenches. It is my hope and my belief, that under the new system of guarantees, the new Czechoslovakia will find a greater security than she has ever enjoyed in the past. . . .
I pass from that subject, and I would like to say a few words in respect of the various other participants, besides ourselves, in the Munich Agreement. After everything that has been said about the German Chancellor today and in the past, I do feel that the House ought to recognise the difficulty for a man in that position to take back such emphatic declarations as he had already made amidst the enthusiastic cheers of his supporters, and to recognise that in consenting, even though it were only at the last moment, to discuss with the representatives of other Powers those things which he had declared he had already decided once for all, was a real and a substantial contribution on his part. With regard to Signor Mussolini, . . . I think that Europe and the world have reason to be grateful to the head of the Italian government for his work in contributing to a peaceful solution.
In my view the strongest force of all, one which grew and took fresh shapes and forms every day war, the force not of any one individual, but was that unmistakable sense of unanimity among the peoples of the world that war must somehow be averted. The peoples of the British Empire were at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety, their intense desire for peace, pervaded the whole atmosphere of the conference, and I believe that that, and not threats, made possible the concessions that were made. I know the House will want to hear what I am sure it does not doubt, that throughout these discussions the Dominions, the Governments of the Dominions, have been kept in the closest touch with the march of events by telegraph and by personal contact, and I would like to say how greatly I was encouraged on each of the journeys I made to Germany by the knowledge that I went with the good wishes of the Governments of the Dominions. They shared all our anxieties and all our hopes. They rejoiced with us that peace was preserved, and with us they look forward to further efforts to consolidate what has been done.
Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity.
There is a saying that goes, "Those that fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it," and it has been repeated. Only this time, instead of Czechoslovakia, the victim of international pressure for appeasement has been Israel. If you haven't read the above speech closely, read it again, and put it in context with the events of the Middle East.
Israel was pressured by the United Nations and regrettably, the United States, that they needed to give up land for peace with Hamas (the Gaza Strip) and Hezbollah (Southern Lebanon), two sworn enemies of Israel. And was there peace? No, there was not. Daily bombings and rocket attacks continued. Israel had had enough of the terrorist attacks by Hezbollah, the ineffectual negotiations with the Lebanese goverment, and the empty promises of the United Nations, so they took matters into their own hands. And when Israel began pounding Hezbollah positions, the world began calling for Israel to restrain itself. They have endured numerous terrorist attacks for many years, and they just cannot restrain themselves from taking action.
According to UN Resolution 1559, Israel and Hezbollah were to withdraw from Southern Lebanon. Israel did, Hezbollah didn't. Israel has stated that they would stop the attacks if their soldiers were returned and Hezbollah withdrew from Southern Lebanon. Hezbollah's response was to launch more rockets into Israel. And what has the UN done? Nothing.
In some respects, these actions have reaffirmed to the world that terrorists and terroristic nations cannot be trusted to keep their word or any treaties that they sign or agree to. UN sanctions & resolutions are treated with distain and are promptly ignored. Bargining with them, i.e., appeasement, will not bring about "peace in our time" or any other time. They will keep up their lethal activities and bullying tactics as long as they continue achieving their goals.
The stated missions of Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Queda and a host of other Islamic terrorist groups/countries is to wipe Israel and all infidel nations from the face of the Earth. Their actions have proved out their will to carry out this mission. If you don't think so, then why are they strapping bombs to themselves, finding a crowded street or bus, and blowing themselves up? Why do you think 9/11 happened? Think they can be negotiated with? I don't. And I hope our elected leaders think the same way.
