About Me

Name: JDComments
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Iran Oil is Self Destructing

Posted by JDComments on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:04:32 AM
According to a report from the National Academy of Sciences [see article from the Washington Times], Iran's oil revenues are dropping drastically as its oil production falls and its inept management and policies are preventing the improvements necessary to reverse this situation, all of which could lead to instability and internal changes favorable to the West.

The problem is not their reserves, which are huge, but rather their resistance to foreign assistance in developing it, and their failure to improve their facilities themselves. Like in so many countries that are essentially one commodity economies, Iran's oil   is both a curse and a blessing; while providing tremendous revenues, it fosters dependence and policies which are short sighted and encourages spending as opposed to investment , which is self defeating.

This information  just further confirms that real sanctions, not those ridiculous restrictions on the six guys who have been identified as working on their nuclear program, might indeed be effective in changing Iran's behavior, both in regard to their weapons, and their support of Islamic radicalism . Recent protests by the students of the country clearly indicate the populace is becoming disenchanted with their fanatical president, and tough financial strictures may just be the formula for inciting regime change. However given the nature of the UN, this hope may be nothing more than a daydream.

Nonetheless, this report is still hopeful , and perhaps what the International community cannot achieve, the Iranian government's stupidity will accomplish for us. The problem is this could take a few years, and so become a race between nuclear development and the collapse of their oil industry, a game of chicken we may  not have the luxury of playing to the end but which may be enough to get the Iranian people to face reality and force their government to worry about them and not the return of the thirteenth Iman. Imminent poverty has a funny way of rearranging one's priorities.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More Muslim "Tolerance"

Posted by JDComments on Monday, December 25, 2006 5:02:21 PM
CAIR, the Islamic advocacy group which many have tied to an agenda to make the US a Muslim nation, has lashed out [see article ] at a Congressman for warning that current immigration policies will lead to an increased Islamic population in this country. 
 
That is an offensive remark?? 

I guess the freedom they reference  to justify a Muslim being elected to Congress doesn't extend to another's right to express what seems obvious to any thinking person.Tolerance is trickier than I thought. Maybe we should have a rulebook?

Rep. Virgil Goode's remarks, which included his belief that stricter immigration policy was necessary to preserve our traditions and values, has stirred up the Muslim community, who throughout the world flaunt their separateness and differences with the  pride appropriate to a people who believe they are meant to rule the world.

Their adherence to the Koran, sharia law and muslim attire would seem demonstrable proof that they do indeed threaten the Christian-Judeo basis of our country, but I guess if an infidel says it they feel it is intolerant and threatening.  By the same token if we expect and ask them to swear on a Bible it is also intolerant and threatening. We cannot point out their differences, and we cannot expect them to obey our rules and traditions. 

I guess infidels should be seen, and occasionally beheaded, but not heard.

Of course, in their constant attempt to prove that they know no bounds when it comes to prostrating themselves before people disparaging this country, Liberals like Nancy Pelosi have come out demanding Goode "take it back" while slavishly promoting the wonderful opportunity an increasing Muslim population represents. They should just ask the French, who are probably getting quite good at putting out burning vehicles torched by their muslim population in protest for ...something.  Diversity is a wonderful thing, especially if you sell cars in France.

The Muslim community is getting very proficient at using the system to defeat our attempts to protect ourselves,  and they are quickly learning the hot button terms, like "racial profiling" that are sure to set off any  good Liberal worth his salt like a dog in a Pavlovian experiment.

If we allow them to manipulate us like this, and to direct our strengths against us because Liberals do not have enough sense  to know when they are being used, we will have no one to blame but ourselves when we are all bowing down five times a day in the direction of Mecca.  Our rights and freedoms are wonderful, but like our airplanes they are being used to harm us, and unless we wise up , we are going to have a lot more casualties than we did on 9/11.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

MSM: Haditha Cause of Iraqi Security Failures

Posted by JDComments on Monday, December 25, 2006 3:09:23 PM
For Times Magazine, the Haditha trial is emblematic of the "failure" of the Iraqi War [see article ] , a pronouncement which they seek to buttress with arguments that are specious, and which only shows their bias and inability to objectively report on an issue so important to American interests.

The fact that we have to show the Iraqis that we do not accept criminal actions by our military is so obvious that to write an article about it is a waste of time.  This is a truism for our country in peace and war, domestically and internationally,  under any and all circumstances, and it is part of what sets America apart from most of the world, yet in the familiar jujitsu moves of Liberalism, our exceptionalism is used to indict us, not commend us.

Perhaps realizing that they needed more to go on if they were going to smear the entire war effort, the writer makes this claim regarding the Iraqis belief that we do not respect them as demonstrated by Haditha:

 Altering that perception will certainly be critical to any prospect of success in the U.S. military's efforts to reverse Iraq's negative security trends.

Ah, so Haditha has resulted in the IRAQIS KILLING ONE ANOTHER ! Now I understand. All that stuff about Sunni-Shia civil war is really just a ruse to cover up the fact that the US is responsible for the murderous attacks we read about everyday. Yes, I see, they are killing one another because they are disgusted from the Haditha "massacre" and are reacting by...outdoing it !  Well aren't they showing us!

Seriously, what point is the writer making? In Lebanon,the  Palestinian terroritories, Afghanistan and just about anywhere you can find a madrassa or mosque Muslims are killing each other, and yet the problem with security in Iraq is because of Haditha?  How can anyone seriously expect that to be believed?

Maybe I am just tired of the incessant Liberal drumbeat of pessimism and bad news, but I refuse to accept downright NONSENSE  being used to further denigrate what I still feel is a fairly successful war in Iraq, one in which we have toppled a dictator, instituted the beginnings of democratic rule, seen a literally booming economy take hold, and killed thousands of fanatics who will never be commandeering  planes to blow up  our buildings.

If there is a failure there it is of the Iraqi leadership, which has not stopped the militias and sectarian violence, and thus disappointed their people's hopes of a peaceful country arising after our freeing of them. How this will end is uncertain, but I refuse to sit by while the MSM persists in making us the cause for all this. 

As our military continues to do an exemplary job, which includes policing themselves ,  we may not be able to stop the Liberals from highlighting bad news, but we can call them out when they say something blatantly false in their effort to discourage Americans' resolve. This attempt to blame Haditha for the failure of Iraqi security forces is such a time.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Jesus the Leftist

Posted by JDComments on Sunday, December 24, 2006 1:04:17 PM
 Right on schedule the Left is pursuing it’s redefinition of Christianity so as to be able to claim it as their own for the 2008 elections. Appropriately enough for Christmas Eve, the latest revisionism deals with the actual significance of the Christmas story, a rendition many of you may not be familiar with.

WAPO’s E.J.Dionne serves as our guide as he reveals the true meaning of Christmas to be a radical class warfare which is meant to upend traditional society and uplift the poor to their proper place of privilege [that seems contradictory I know, but you must remember foolish consistency is not a Liberal drawback!].

Writing a review of a new book by an author who believes :

that the reading of the Christian tradition offered by African-Americans is as close as any to the authentic meaning of Christianity

Dionne practically gushes over this interpretation, and goes on to give more biblical examples which can be used to prove that the Christian-Judeo tradition is all about social justice for the poor and enslaved.

Time and again the subversive and revolutionary message of Christianity is emphasized as Dionne makes clear that what was important about the Christ child was his apparent “poor” birth and what that portended in His teachings. In other words, Christ as Social Activist.

I wrote post a few days ago in which I said the Left would be trying to recast religion in the form of a social movement as happened in the 1980’s with Liberation Theology in Latin America, but I never imagined Mr. Dionne would validate my expectations so soon or clearly. In his words:

The poor, the outcasts, the slaves: If Jesus spoke to anyone, it was to them, and they have responded to him through the centuries

This is Leftist Religion in a nutshell: its not about spirituality, the inner Kingdom of Heaven or even God, its only about helping the poor. What is a byproduct of true belief is for a Liberal the only thing worth considering or keeping.In fact,  if they bothered to read the Bible, they would find that Jesus exhorts us to be poor because the rich are too burdened with material things to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but try explaining that to a Liberal!

If anything demonstrates the Left’s failure to understand the significance of Religion and Faith, it is this attempt to equate it only with social welfare programs. They just don’t understand religion, and yet their acknowledgment of it’s importance in this country means they will continue to try and twist and mold it into something that will justify their positions no matter how grotesque or unrecognizable it turns out.

They will attempt to turn Jesus into a Marxist even as Christians are horrified by this secularization of truths that transcend the material to nurture and comfort our souls. But we will not be fooled, and the Liberals will be left trying to understand their failure yet again.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Changes Men?

Posted by JDComments on Saturday, December 23, 2006 1:39:32 PM
History has proven that government does not change the nature of men, but rather Men's nature determines the government they have.

In my ongoing quest to define their differences, perhaps this statement most clearly reveals how Conservatism's worldview is so diametrically opposed to Liberalism's. Even though Rousseau, an icon of the Enlightenment and one of the touchstone's of Liberal thought believed that government corrupts Natural Man, through the centuries the Left has defied this tenet and tried time and again to perfect men by imposing  laws and regulations upon them.  And it has failed over and over again.

Laws do not change men, but rather are only effective when they reflect the consensus views of the citizenry. Legislation that defies norms are usually ignored or defied, and as Prohibition proved, have consequences which are contrary to the intended effects. Men's nature does not change because Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Shumer declares it should. Hubris is an ugly attribute.

So how do we  progress and change? By generations of exposure to the values of our families and neighborhoods and  religions, and even philosophies which we ingest and internalize over time, constantly testing them and evaluating their worth. And by living and experiencing the world , and allowing what we learn to make adjustments to who we are.
 
In other words, as Jesus said 2000 years ago, the Kingdom of Heaven is inside us, and has nothing to do with Caesar's regime. And when each of us brings that Kingdom forth, only then will the external world change. 

This is what all Conservatives  understand as they seek to retain and cherish what we have learned over generations and which we modify only after long and careful evaluation which always takes into account what experience has shown us to be. And this is what Liberals refuse to accept, as they believe they can make us into what they want by just declaring it so. They are futilely waiting for Caesar to change us.

Merry Christmas to you all.

JD
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The True Costs of Raising the Minimum Wage

Posted by JDComments on Friday, December 22, 2006 7:19:17 PM
The United States' economy is a miracle, a wealth producing machine the likes of which has never been seen before, a product of our embrace of capitalism and free markets. Therefore, whenever I  see politicians attempting to make "better" something about it , I cringe. Raising the minimum wage is right up there on the top of my list as an insidious form of wealth redistribution which can only do harm.

First, let me say that my embrace of the free market is predicated not on some mystical faith that Adam Smith knew what he was talking about, which he obviously did, but on information theory. Before your eyes glaze over, let me explain this simply as recognizing the economy as a vast, complex computer which is constantly getting input from buyers and producing output from sellers. As an integrated whole this is almost an unfathomable system, but on an individual basis, that is broken down to its constituent parts, it is manageable and understandable.

This is what the market does: it devolves decisions down to the most efficient level, which is the individual businesses. It is parallel processing using a  multitude of microprocessors instead of a main CPU , the government, which is not up to the task.  It is the collective intelligence of the components of the economic units, the businesses and the buyers, as opposed to the top down fiat issuing of a small group of experts who are anything but.

To tinker with this system is almost always foolish. To do so regarding the minimum wage is especially so for a number of reasons.

As Ivan Osorio writes in an article in the American Spectator which criticizes Bush for endorsing it, the minimum wage increase  will price many of those with little or no skills out of the market and thus eliminate their chance of acquiring on the job skills which will help them to do better.

As an employer myself, I will tell you that the price rise will also ripple upwards, because an office clerk who now makes $7.50 /hr will not be willing to work for what is essentially the new minimum wage. Thus the entire lower end pricing structure will be shifted up and payrolls will increase much more than is expected [or perhaps the proponents do expect it but are smart enough not to mention it.].

The last thing that will happen is that businesses will raise their prices, and the famous push-pull of salary increases and price inflation will occur, and of course the consumer will suffer. I guarantee Big Macs go up in price anywhere this minimum wage increase affects salaries.

Lastly, if someone wants to work for $5.15/hr they should be allowed to, and if they don't they shouldn't. This is what makes capitalism function, the market determination of prices and wages,and any effort to tinker with it invariably incurs the law of unintended, and bad consequences.

Raising the minimum wage is just another stealth socialistic step for the Liberals, and having Bush endorse it is very disappointing.  Our economy is the envy of the world for a reason. Making it more like the ossified economies of Europe doesn't just make no sense, it is criminal, like me doing a tune up on a Ferrari. Believe me, that car would never be the same again.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dems are Now the "Peace Party"

Posted by JDComments on Friday, December 22, 2006 12:48:06 PM
 Matthew Continetti of The Weekly Standard  has written what should be the definitive article detailing the history, causes and ramifications of the differences between the Republican and Democratic parties when it comes to the use of American military power, and the conclusions, while not surprising, should scare us all.

This piece is lengthy and detailed, filled with statistics and polls as well as historical facts, and well worth the effort of reading because its topic is so important. To really simplify, since the end of the Vietnam War the two parties have drifted further and further apart until today the Republicans are the "Power Party" and the Dems are the "Peace Party", and this demarcation is not confined to the leaders, but rather reflects their respective constituencies.

What this means for policies is: 
 
In November 2005 the MIT Public Opinion Research Lab conducted a more specific survey. The data are revealing. One question asked whether the United States had made a mistake in invading Afghanistan in October 2001. Ninety-four percent of Republicans said the policy of regime change in Afghanistan had not been a mistake. Only 59 percent of Democrats agreed. In the MIT survey, only 4 percent of Democrats thought the war in Iraq had been worth fighting. Republicans were more likely than Democrats to support the use of U.S. combat troops, and by greater margins. This was the case when respondents were asked whether they would approve of using U.S. troops to protect oil supplies (10 percent of Democrats said yes versus 41 percent of Republicans), to spread democracy (7 percent versus 53 percent), to destroy a terrorist base (57 percent versus 95 percent), to intervene in a humanitarian disaster such as a genocide or civil war (56 percent versus 61 percent), and to protect American allies under attack (76 percent versus 92 percent). In only one area did more Democrats than Republicans support the use of troops: helping the United Nations "uphold international law" (71 percent versus 36 percent).

In other words, as much as they may claim that their opposition to Iraq is based on the specific facts of that particular action, in reality the Democratic party , other than to support UN missions, does not feel the US is justified in using its power for any other cause.

This clear and remarkable espousal of a pacificistic philosophy which would emasculate our power and leave us practically no  options in dealing with foreign problems is more than frightening; it is horrifying to think that the Party about to take over Congress will never feel that we are justified in using our military. Not to defend the oil without which our country may very well be doomed, not to defend allies,  not to destroy terorrists bases, not for anything other than those absurd studies in fantasy called UN missions.

What causes this disparity is just as interesting and upsetting.  Per the article:

What lies at the bottom of the great chasm dividing the peace party from the power party? One suspects it is differing attitudes toward American exceptionalism, conflicting opinions on America's goodness and greatness. In 2004 the pollster Scott Rasmussen asked respondents whether America is "generally fair and decent." Eighty-three percent of respondents planning to vote for George W. Bush agreed with that sentiment; only 46 percent of those planning to vote for John Kerry thought so. Rasmussen also asked whether respondents thought the world would be better off if other nations were more like the United States. The data were similar: Eighty-one percent of those planning to vote for Bush thought so; just 48 percent of Kerry voters agreed. When Rasmussen asked the "fair and decent" question again in November 2006, he found similar results.

So where the Republicans are bolstered by their faith in the exceptionalism of America, the Democrat not only do not concede this, but feel we are a bad influence in the world.

Now this should probably not surprise anyone who listens to them, but it does me. Perhaps I am just a patriotic, jingoistic simpleton, but I look at what the US has accomplished in defending and improving the world  starting with WWI, through WWI and the Marshall Plan, the Cold War and now the  War on Terror and I see a power that could have forced its hegemony on the planet but instead has constrained itself and pursued policies which have cost it dearly while helping others, and I am incensed that anyone would  disparage or denigrate us, and yet a large part of this country obviously does.

Where this leaves us is that the polarization so often touted by pundits is not about George Bush, try as they  might to make it so. It is about how people view this country, and that being the case I cannot envision a "uniter" who can reconcile these two opposing views of the US and its military.  Rather, as the article points out, we seem fated to swing between the embarassed and apologetic impotency of the Democratic Party and the confident and courageous exercise of power in the service of our national interests of the Republican Party.
During a war , the former can only lead to tragedy.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CIA: Iraq Defeat Will Embolden Terrorists

Posted by JDComments on Thursday, December 21, 2006 3:45:33 PM
I hope the governent did not pay a whole lot to arrive at the conclusion that a US defeat in Iraq would embolden jihadists [see article from Washington Times]. There are somethings which common sense and experience should make perfectly clear, and if our intelligence services have to run elaborate war games to arrive at the same conclusions we are in worse shape than we thought.

However, to be fair, most Liberals refuse to acknowledge this obvious ramification of our retreating from Iraq, so perhaps a big Government program with lots of bells and whistles and a hefty price tag was thought to be what that bunch needed, but I doubt it will change their minds.

The article points out that starting with the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan and continuing through various minor attacks and perceived victories over the US, the Terrorists have become increasingly more confident and audacious, something anyone who has ever watched the dynamics of a schoolyard bully would understand., or should anyway. I guess CIA types lead sheltered lives as kids.

Those who argue that the Iraq war has increased recruitment among the Islamic radicals should stop and think  about what a major victory over the Great Satan will do. Somehow I do not think that Bin Laden and Company are going to call it a day and retire satisfied.  Now we have CIA confirmation of that.

Regardless of how we have fared in bringing democracy to Iraq , we have for three years tied up the men and resources of our enemy and in the process killed many and dealt them blows from which they are reeling, as they themselves have admitted in communiques. We have a tendency to overblow the capabilities of our foes, and so think that our endeavor in Iraq is only a minor inconvenience for the jihadists, but in reality it is, as they have said, their version of WWIII and a defeat there would seriously set them back , while a victory would supercharge their cause and allow it to metastasize throughout the world, while putting us on the defensive .
We would go from controlling the battle to reacting to a burgeoning enemy, not a good place to be. Just ask the CIA.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberal Icon Pleads for Saddam

Posted by JDComments on Thursday, December 21, 2006 1:04:03 PM
Ramsay Clark, that icon of the Liberal Establishment , and eternal thorn in the side of practical humanity, today is pleading for poor Saddam Hussein, who he fears may be tortured before he is executed [see article ]. Gee, I know that thought keeps me up nights too.

I am posting this article just as another example of the Liberal idiocy which in time of war borders on suicidal. If we cannot execute an enemy like Saddam, who should we kill? Obviously for Clark the answer is no one, and therein lies the problem: the Left has "evolved" to the point where no one deserves to die, and try waging a war with that minor constraint on it.

Unfortunately the other side doesn't have this compunction, and so must be sitting somewhere with mouths agape as they consider the possibility that Clark speaks for anyone besides himself,  and that they maybe facing such a kind, considerate enemy that even one of the monsters of the 20th century deserve their compassion and forgiveness. In fact , they may be so touched they might feel a bit misty eyed next time they cut off one of our heads.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Students Reflect Iranian Weakpoints

Posted by JDComments on Thursday, December 21, 2006 12:34:13 PM
 As last week's protest against the Iranian president by students [see post ]  and this week's election results indicate, there is an underlying discontent with the Ahmadinejad regime in Iran that offers the West the incentive and direction it needs to undermine it without recourse to military options.

The students of the country who have traditionally been the vanguard of societal change are taking heart from recent events to become more vocal and active in opposing the hardline Islamic regime which has smothered the few rights they had and has not provided the economic benefits they had been promised [see article ].

As opposed to North Korea which is like a black hole in regard to information within it, we can clearly see that an authoritarian regime is having seriously problems there, and cracks are forming which we should be taking advantage of to remove one of the most destabilizing factors in the region.

Serious sanctions which inflict hardships on the people and not just a few guys working on the nuclear program could provide the leverage that is needed to tip the whole country into rebellion.  Surgical penalties which seek to spare the citizens from discomfort are idiotic and self defeating. The Iranian people are responsible for Ahmadinejad being in power, and they have to pay a price until he is gone. Our sanctions should also hold out a carrot for their coming to their senses and ousting a maniac who threatens world peace.

If we refuse to seriously apply this kind of pressure we are leaving ourselves with no other option than full scale war, which I cannot see the UN , our allies, or anyone besides the Israelis supporting. And if the Dems are in power,  it may very well be that the Israelis are on their own, which means a regional war which will endanger oil supplies and disrupt the world economy like nothing since the Great Depression. The stakes cannot be higher, and we may have to bet it all on a bunch of unhappy kids.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

UN, Global Warming=New Scandal?

Posted by JDComments on Thursday, December 21, 2006 9:19:31 AM
A program supported by the UN to limit the release of global warming gases has demonstrated the effectiveness we have come to associate with that august Institution: a  $5 million dollar fix results in $500 million dollars in payments. Sounds like a deal!

The report in the NY Times details exactly how this wonderful program, which also  involves European trading criteria for emissions,  operates, but the gist is that another Liberal idea is skewing markets and inefficiently operating and actually having results counterproductive to its goals [surprise!] thus proving once again that the UN is organizationally incapable of doing anything right. 

What will it take for people to realize the UN should be shut down for all our sakes?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Libertarian's Ignorant Argument Against Torture

Posted by JDComments on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 7:53:54 PM
To understand the mindset of a Libertarian, read this article by  Jim Henley where he takes the scenario of a ticking nuclear bomb and a terrorist who admittedly knows where it is that many use as an argument for selective torture and attempts to subvert it by creating an equivalency with a detestable act , thereby proving that  the argument is fallacious. All that he proves to me is that he has no clue as to what he is talking about.

His logic is that if the terrorist asked you to rape your own child and he would reveal the bomb's location, and thus spare millions of lives, you probably wouldn't, and therefore using the same argument to justify torture is dishonest and wrong.  According to him the only reason that the torture scenario is used is because the government wants to torture people, and are just looking for an excuse. This is the thinking of a Libertarian mind. Scary, isn't it?

He then goes on and postulates a whole bunch of "what if's" [what if the Terrorist wants a ride on the space shuttle, what if you could save your life by letting a million other's die, even something about the World Series] and ends with the Liberal lament about the hypothetical innocent man who is tortured and will say anything to end the pain.

Most of this is the usual drivel, but let us take his argument backwards, and say if he is right,and torture is not justifiable because you wouldn't do anything imaginable to stop the terrorist, then why is questioning permitted at all? And if questioning is not , then why is putting someone on trial  or even arresting him in the first place? Your honor we wouldn't rape our children so we cannot ethically stop this man from blowing up Manhattan.

The point is that because we do somethings and not others doesn't invalidate the things we do. This guy's argument would eventually lead to a Libertarian paradise in which you could do whatever you want and no one could hold you responsible because they wouldn't rape their child to stop you!  He uses what is obviously a detestable example and then impugns all other methods because we are not willing to perform this most heinous act to obtain our goal. This logic would lead to anarchy, but considering it comes from a Libertarian, I think he knows that already.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Time for War for Oil?

Posted by JDComments on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 1:29:15 PM
Yesterday James Biga  of Biga's Rants and I had an interesting exchange on his post where he does an excellent job of tying together the disparate pieces of what is happening in the Middle East so as to present the underlying strategy.  As I find happening more and more, the excellent bloggers on this site are causing me to think further and deeper than I usually do, and none accomplish this more than James.

In trying to decide how Russia and Venezuela play into this geopolitical puzzle, we pondered the possibility that , even though the Russians are as threatened by Islam as anyone,  they may be operating under a different assumption, one which we are forgetting entirely in looking to them to be our partners in the War on Terror. Simply put, follow the money. Why would Russia be so willing to support Iran's nuclear ambitions when it is just as possible a terrorist nuke could make it into Moscow  as into NY? In a word, oil.

 Even as we speak Putin is assembling an energy empire which will soon have a stranglehold on Europe [see article in Washington Times] and he has demonstrated his willingness to use it to exercise power.  In truth, the Russians are accomplishing through oil and gas what they never really did through their military: establishing hegemony over all of Europe.

If the Middle East is thrown into chaos by the Iranians procuring the Bomb, oil will increase in value significantly, meaning Russia makes even more money and garners more power. If, however, nuclear war erupts with Israel, or a regional conflict breaks out to stop the Iranians before they acquire the material and technology, then Middle Eastern oil might very well be taken off the market, making Russia the MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE WORLD by dint of their control of much of the remaining  reserves. Oil could conceivably go to $500 a barrel, and gas could be $20 a gallon! Actually the price will be whatever the Russians decide.

Venezuela is also trying to establish an energy empire in Latin America, and  to extend its distribution capabilities throughout the continent [see article] ] so that it, too, will be the beneficiary of any Middle Eastern conflict which disrupts oil production.

Could Russia be so shortsighted as to think a radical Islamic nuclear state wouldn't seriously threaten them? Well, just remember this was the country which cooperated with Hitler even though in Mein Kampf he just about announced his plans to conquer them. What did they get in return? Finland, and then a war with their "ally" which killed millions of their citizens.  I have to believe world domination through energy has to be more enticing than occupying Helsinki.

So as the Dems take control and try to negotiate us out of the Middle East, perhaps they should look a little deeper at countries like Russia and realize that nations are as foolhardy as people in assessing their  best
interests, and greed in no longer just a Western fault. While we ponder a nuclear attack on a city, who is considering the economic effects of no Middle Eastern oil, which could engulf us in another Great Depression?

The time for respecting the disparaging Liberals mantra of " Would you die for oil?" is over. The truth is more of us will die WITHOUT it, and we cannot allow that to happen. There is a War on Terror, but there is also a  bigger game being played here which is even more dangerous in some respects, and we have to be ready for it.  Whether we have to seize South American oil fields, or invade Iran, we better be prepared to control our destiny by securing the life blood of our industrial nation.

The Middle East is  the nexus of  a vital resource and a fanatical ideology and that is a witches brew which could be toxic for us.  And all those addled minded Liberals who would never fight a war for oil and who look to the Russians and other countries to help us fight the Islamicists, well its time they get a wake up call that gets them out of the dream world they have been slumbering in for way too long. Is oil worth dying for? Unless you want to live in a medieval society, the answer is a resounding "YES".




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Terrorism Seen as Mere Nuisance

Posted by JDComments on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 2:09:36 PM
The debate over whether terrorism should be seen as a law enforcement problem or military matter is ongoing, with the Dems by their support of suspect rights and the need for warrants and other legal niceties taking the former view while the administration supports the latter. There does seem to be a third perspective which is encapsulated in this article and it is that terrorism is a lowgrade nuisance which we can learn to live with as we do with traffic fatalities and drownings in bathtubs.  But can we?

John Mueller, the proponent of this opinion, appears to lean libertarian, and that would justify a view which argues that all the costs and efforts used to protect us against terrorism are wasted if you consider the actual effects of terrorists attacks as opposed to their psychological ramifications, which he argues we are furthering by our panicky responses. In other words , if we take them in stride they will lose their potency and hopefully be abandoned as tactics by Islamofascists.

The author gives a good  counterargument which shows that the number and effects of these attacks are increasing, and that just looking at deaths misses the symbolism of losing a World Trade Center to these fanatics. He also points out that thwarted attacks are never noticed by definition, and so the tremendous costs to stop them seem wasted when in truth they are most definitely working. In this case success is almost self defeating if constant reinforcement of the threat is what is required to keep people motivated. Hopefully it is not.

He doesn't point out that the spread of WMD's, and especially nuclear technology, over the last decade has increased the potential damage of a terrorist attack  exponentially, and now a small group of madmen could conceivably wipe out a small city. I think it is safe to say this removes the threat from the "nuisance " category.

However, I think the main factor in magnifying the lethality of terrorism attacks is the fact that it has now become a state sponsored activity to a degree never before seen. Yes, Libya did underwrite some terrorists, but nothing on the scale we see today . Part of the reason for that is the tremendous wealth that Iran has accumulated from the price of oil. When push comes to shove money always talks, and today it is screaming "Allah be praised".

I must confess that after 9/11  I , too, was of the opinion that to allow Al Quaida to control our activities was almost an insult, and that our response should be much more moderate given the small resources of the enemy we faced. However, over the last five years as I have watched the true enablers of terrorism grow wealthy and pursue the ultimate weapons I have come around to supporting the military option as the only viable choice to defeat a multiheaded enemy who truly seeks world domination, and it scares me to see that there are still those out there who just don't understand that we are not dealing with a nuisance but a terrifying menace to all we hold dear.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

European Muslims Face Discrimination?

Posted by JDComments on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:22:37 AM
The European Union's report on their Muslim population concludes they face discrimination but does mention that they could do more themselves to connect with wider society, an observation which nicely places the blame for their problems right where it belongs: on the Muslims themselves.

Discrimination implies that a people are treated as separate and different than the majority. Part of the problem as identified by the report is the suspicion that international terrorism has cast on Islamicists.

However, let us consider the behavior of the Muslims themselves. This is a people that: insists on wearing clothes that separate them and sometimes fly in the face of European traditions and even laws; follow Sharia, a legal code that dictates all aspects of life and which conflicts with Western tradition and jurisprudence; believe all infidels [non -Muslims] must be converted,, subjugated or killed; support organizations which subsidize terrorism; often espouse a virulent Anti-Semitism ; kill those who offend their religious beliefs [i.e. Theo Van Gogh]] or issue fatwas to that effect [Rushdie]; and occasionally blow up a train or subway station to emphasize their points.

Gee, I wonder why they are treated differently?

Muslims do not want to be treated as others; they want others to acquiesce to them. This report is another attempt to appease the unappeasable and to rationally approach a problem that defies reason or even human decency. Unless the Muslim people come to accept the tolerance of Western culture, something which seems impossible,  the only way to handle the Muslim situation in Europe is the surrender to their demands and accept Islam as the dominant  religion or to fight the Muslims as they attempt to impose this.

This report is a study in unreality and the refusal to accept what conditions exist in hopes of attaining a peaceful solution.  If I didn't know better I'd think it was another Baker-Hamilton work.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234567891011Next »