The Status Quo

The biggest attack on troops occurred yesterday in Mosul, creating some 80 casualties. The main problem with this insurgency is the help of foreign countries, Iran and Syria. A stable democracy in Iraq would be a serious threat to their totalitarian regimes, so they will do all in their power to undermine the country. The border is long and relatively indefensible leaving it open for the influx of weapons and personnel.

In Vietnam and Korea, China and Russia were involved in the wars without it being acknowledged by the US. Troops and supplies flooded into North Korea and North Vietnam. The US was left to play only defense. Here, the administration has done little to deal with the involvement of Syria and Iran. If the US maintains the status quo here, I doubt the situation will improve. I don’t know enough to recommend a course of action, but the current status quo will only result in dead troops, terrified civilians, and a decreased morale at home.

The Biggest Story Not Being Reported

So wild eyed communist sympathizers can go around protesting, but Christians cannot protest a gay parade?

(CNSNews.com) - Four people who were arrested during a confrontation at an annual homosexual pride event in Philadelphia could spend up to 47 years in prison for public reading of Scripture, an attorney for a pro-family organization said on Thursday.Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association (AFA) Center for Law and Policy, is representing the group in court. He claims the Christian activists are being persecuted simply for exercising their constitutional rights."They were exercising their First Amendment rights in a public forum, and we have videotape that demonstrates that," Fahling said.
The case began on Oct. 10, when Repent America Director Michael Marcavage and 10 other persons preached and read verses from the Bible during an annual "gay pride" event known as "Outfest" in Philadelphia.Fahling said that a video of the confrontation showed Marcavage speaking through a bullhorn while he and his supporters were "being shouted down by irate gay activists."However, city officials told the Philadelphia Inquirer that the video did not show the start of the confrontation, when they said Marcavage tried to interrupt an onstage performance with his preaching and then disobeyed a police order to move to the perimeter of the "block party" to avoid the potential for violence."They were not prohibited from preaching," said Karen Brancheau, a lawyer for the district attorney's office. "A reasonable request was made to prevent a situation from becoming dangerous to their own safety, as well as the safety of the participants."Charges were later dropped against seven people in the "Philadelphia 11" because they were not seen quoting Scripture on a videotape of the incident. However, the remaining four individuals have been ordered to stand trial on three felony counts -- criminal conspiracy, ethnic intimidation and riot -- and five misdemeanor charges. If convicted, Fahling said, they could face up to 47 years in prison. Charles Ehrlich, the city prosecutor in the case, has called the Christian protestors "hateful" and referred to preaching the Bible as using "fighting words."Philadelphia Municipal Court Judge William Austin Meehan has banned the protestors from doing any type of evangelism within 100 yards of any "gay and lesbian event."This past week, U.S. District Judge Petrese B. Tucker denied emergency relief from prosecution despite video footage Fahling calls "undisputed evidence" that the group cooperated with police and were continually harassed by members of a homosexual organization called the Pink Angels. Then on Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit turned down a similar appeal.Since the federal courts did not intervene, the
last route for the group to avoid trial would be an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Fahling said"First, symbols of Christianity are removed from the public square; now, Christians are facing 47 years in prison because they preached the gospel in the public square. Stalin would be proud," Fahling concluded. CNS News

Rumsfeld Questioned by Troops

To begin, I liked the fact that Rummy took the questions in the first place. Regarding the armor for the vehicles, his answer of "we're moving fast as possible" just doesn't cut it. They've been there for over 2 years now. In WWII, the made Liberty ships in a matter of days. I doubt in today's day and age, the military can add armor plating to Hummers.

I think he was clueless to the problems soldiers were having getting travel reimbursements and hopefully he'll address the issue. The military needs to get its act together regarding its logistics and finance.

Congress, meanwhile, is patting itself on the back for its intelligence reform bill which probably does nothing but change around bureaucracy.

Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday faced open criticism from his own U.S. troops, who complained about inadequate armor for Iraq...Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles? And why don't we have those resources readily available to us?" ... Rumsfeld conceded that "not every vehicle has the degree of armor that it would be desirable for it to have," and said the Army was hurrying to rovide more armored vehicles, adding 400 per month. But Rumsfeld added, "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." Yahoo News

Reminder of the AIDS hype

This is a rather old article, but it's prevelance and importance in paramount when reading and discussing the "AIDS epidemic." The biggest problem that I have with the AIDS hype, is that almost all AIDS cases today are easily preventable, especially in the US. The cure or treatment of AIDS for whoever has it, isn't a bad thing, but there's only so much federal and charitable money allocated to for disease research in the US and the world. Unfortunately, AIDS is receieving the lions share of that money, when it could be better spend on other more unpreventable diseases. Every dollar that is spent on AIDS research takes away from money spent on cancer or leukemia research.

...it turns out that AIDS in Africa -- which doesn't even require an HIV test to diagnose -- may be a very different condition than AIDS in America. Evidence shows that "AIDS" in Africa is just a new description of many age-old diseases common to nations in misery and war with starvation, wrecked economies and ruined public health services. HIV tests, essential to any diagnosis of AIDS in the United States, aren't even given in Africa, except to tiny samples of the population. For Africa, there is the "Bangui Definition." (which specifies), the patient must have two of these three symptoms: "prolonged fevers for a month or more, weight loss over 10 percent, or prolonged diarrhea," combined with any one of several minor symptoms -- chronically swollen lymph nodes, persistent cough for more than a month, persistent herpes, itching skin inflammation or several others. But many of these symptoms show up from other African diseases, now vastly spread because of the political chaos.

Poor sanitation, poverty, malnutrition and parasitic diseases were always common and are now endemic. In America, AIDS is a name for 30-odd diseases found together with a positive test for HIV antibodies. Consequently, being HIV positive is the requirement for a diagnosis of AIDS in the U.S. In addition, there's even a credibility problem with such HIV testing as it is done. ....False positive test results with the common HIV ELISA tests can come from many causes, including pregnancy and diseases endemic to poverty-stricken Africa, such as malaria, tuberculosis and leprosy. The Western Blot is a more precise follow-up test, but expensive and rarely done in Africa. ... Transmission to infants from infected mothers' milk is reportedly widespread, but can't really be checked until 15 months after birth, when the infant develops its own antibodies.

"It's also a money game, and Africans learned to play it," says Michael Fumento, author of "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" -- "going to places with high rates and then extrapolating positive test results over the entire nation, because that's where the money is. If diseases are diagnosed as traditional, few Westerners care, but if they are described as AIDS, money and help come flowing in from Western nations." For example, tuberculosis deaths have now been reclassified as AIDS deaths in many African statistical reports.

It's the same disease, but now it qualifies for help. These facts are amazingly unreported in America...In questioning the reason for what appears to be gross exaggeration of AIDS statistics, experts bring up the old legal term of "Cui bono" -- who benefits? The list is very long.

In money terms, first there is the pharmaceutical industry....Then there is the public health establishment. More billions can go for salaries, offices, staffing, travel and long reports. The World Health Organization budget has skyrocketed along with African AIDS statistics... In America, government AIDS money is spread far and wide. Federal spending now tops $10 billion and is increasing yearly even as case loads fall.

One of the most pernicious effects of the scare tactics is the wish to "prove" that AIDS is a heterosexual disease that "anybody can get," distracting from its most recognized form of transmission -- intravenous drug needle sharing and unprotected anal sex. As Bethell writes, "The failure of American AIDS to 'explode' into the general population led the authorities to look for the phenomenon elsewhere.... If the very high AIDS spending by the U.S. government is to be sustained, the emergency would have to be drummed up elsewhere, ... so Africa beckoned..."

However, contradicting the highly-publicized "heterosexual" AIDS infection rates in sub-Saharan Africa, HIV is difficult to contract. Under normal, healthy conditions, the chances of an infected man transmitting the virus to an unprotected woman are less then 2 in 1,000, according to the World Bank. And the August 15, 1997, "American Journal of Epidemiology" reported that male-to-female transmission of HIV is extremely difficult, requiring on average one thousand unprotected sexual (non-anal) contacts, and female-to-male requires
on average 8,000.... WND

Arafat is in stable condition after dying in a Paris hospital

The Palestinian machine needs to create the unfounded theory that Arafat died of poison. They know they can’t say it outright because it’s not true, but they keep the window open to perpetuate the anti-Israel attacks. They want to create the theory that he died of some secret unknown Massad poison.

AIDS has been suggested due to the reports of low platelet counts. However, dying of something like cirrhosis of the liver is just as shameful for him. Arafat sent a lot of people to their deaths via "martyrdom." He also purported that he would die a martyr. So if Arafat dies of a normal cause, then his death would discourage other Palestinians from becoming suicide bombers. Arafat’s legacy is demolished and his death cannot be used as a piece of propaganda. The Palestinians will do everything to keep the theory of poison alive, and they are aided by their sycophants in the media who refuse to speculate themselves.

"Yasser Arafat's nephew said on Monday that medical records released by France showed no race of known poisons in the late Palestinian leader but the cause of death remained a mystery. Nasser al-Kidwa, Palestinian envoy to the United Nations, said the 558-page medical report gave "no clear diagnosis" of what caused his uncle's death in a French military hospital on Nov. 11 and he refused to rule out foul play. The question of what killed Arafat at age 75 is likely to keep the rumor mill churning and to fuel conspiracy theories for years to come.... "Toxicology tests were made, and no poison known to the doctors was found," al-Kidwa said, basing his comments at a news conference on the medical dossier released to him by the French military.

"Because of the lack of clear diagnosis, a question mark remains there (about why Arafat died). Personally I believe it will remain there for some time to come," he added…."We don't have proof that suggests there was poisoning. We don't have proof that there wasn't, in a definitive way," al-Kidwa said. "In all cases, I believe that the Israeli authority is largely responsible for what happened, at least because of the confinement of the late president to (his headquarters) in very bad conditions for three years."

Marine "scandal" debunked

The latest "scandal" is that a marine was videotaped shooting a wounded Iraqi that he believed to be faking dead. Now the left is screaming war crimes. However, another marine was killed by an terrorist faking dead and then shooting the marine. So with these things actually happening, do you think other marines would be likely to play liberal politics with other terrorists?

"Marine Lance Cpl. Jeramy Ailes, 22, of Gilroy was killed Monday in Al-Fallujah by small arms fire. ``They had finished mopping up in Fallujah and they went back to double-check on some insurgents. From what we gathered, somebody playing ossum jumped up and shot him,'' said his father, Joel Ailes, who learned of his death Monday evening. ``It's extremely hard.'' Mercury News

Shame of NBC for lack of discretion. Now this incident will be a newest recruiting tool for Islamofacists (succeeding the Daily Mirror's fake pictures from earlier in the year).

However, where's Bush or Rummy defending the marine, or at least making a statement saying not to rush to judgement? Instead their ambassador is expressing regret. Why doesn't Bush just go apologize again, perhaps this time, to the Syrian "President"? Yahoo News

Al-Reuters does it again.....

"News" service, Al-Reuters, discusses the possible candidates for Time's Man of the Year.....

"Gibson was proposed for directing "The Passion of the Christ," a controversial film seen by many as anti-Semitic. Moore made "Fahrenheit 9/11," a film highly critical of the Bush administration which was a huge box office hit."

The only comment on Gibson's movie was that it was "anti-Semitic," but Moore's was a huge box office hit. Gibson's movie ranks 9th all time and pulled in $370million. Moore's film, although commericial successful, made about 1/3 of Gibson's, but Moore's was the one deemed a huge box office hit. Al-Reuters via Yahoo

Ding, Dong Arafat goes to Hell

Yassar Arafat was officially declared dead this morning and the news media is in a frenzy of report and biographies, which remain largely sympathetic. Is anyone else sickened by the endless droning about Arafat?

Chirac called Arafat as a "man of courage and conviction.” Reuters labels him the “Yasser Arafat, the guerrilla icon turned Nobel Peace Prize winner…” A BBC reporter admitted crying and to my utmost disappointed even the Holy See said “Arafat was one of the "illustrious deceased" and asked God to grant eternal rest to his soul.... He was a leader of great charisma who loved his people….” ABC Blah, blah, blah…

He spend 40 years deliberately murdering innocent civilians, yet he is being honored. He has more blood on his hand than Charles Manson, yet he is astonishingly revered. was responsible for some of the most heinous terror attacks worldwide, including plane hijackings, shootings, bombings and kidnappings - activities that went on for decades. Not only did he murder civilians, but he stole from the Palestinians he supposedly loved. Besides rejecting a generous peace plan in 2000, that would have given the Palestinians their own state and freedom, he diverted billions of international money into his private accounts. Even the NY Times reports “As Yasir Arafat lay dying in Paris, the battle over his legacy involved an unstated but widely acknowledged concern: He personally controlled several billion dollars, and no one else knew where it all was….Last year, an audit of Palestinian Authority finances by the International Monetary Fund disclosed that Mr. Arafat had diverted $900 million in public funds to a bank account he controlled from 1995 to 2002. Most of the cash, diverted from budget revenues, went to a variety of commercial ventures.”

How many buildings, roads, clothes, hospitals, and schools could $2+ billion have been used for? There is no doubt that there is suffering on the part of the Palestinians, but it is largely the fault of Arafat. The truth is that Arafat never wanted to see a free peaceful Palestine because his worldly importance and the donations to him would diminish. Not only does he have the blood of the many on his hands, he has trampled on the futures of millions of Palestinians.

Now, can we all stop gushing about him?

Bush Wins!!!!!

Well the election is over and Bush is victorious. The electoral vote was rather close and it all came down to Ohio. With a 130,000 vote lead, Kerry conceded graciously. The Senate picked up seats and leads 55-44-1 (+4) and the House is 232-201-1 (+3). So the Republicans now control all three by a healthy margin. This is their time to shine. They will have the ability to do what they what without the obstructionist of the Democrats or even liberal Republicans. Big things ought to happen and they will have to make good on their promises as they lack any excuses. When it comes to judicial nominees, if the Democrats threaten filibuster, the Republicans better call their bluff, and force them to filibuster instead of rolling over.

The final vote tally is below. I was quite close with my popular vote prediction, with only being 0.1% off for Bush, 0.48% off for Kerry and 0.08% off for the other third party. Bush’s popular vote tally didn’t quite translate into an electoral vote blowout, and my prediction was somewhat optimistic. Nader did even worse than predicted and barely got more votes than the libertarian candidate.

Bush (R): 279 EV 58,978,616 51.10%
Kerry (D): 252 EV 55,384,497 47.98%
Nader (I): 394,578 0.342%
Badnarik (L): 377,940 0.327%
14 other 3rd Parties: 292097, 0.253%

Decision 2004 Prediction

With the election only 4 days away, it's about time to make my election night predicitons. Everyone in the media is on about how close of an election it will be, but I have the feeling that Bush will win by a larger margin than anticipated. I think this year, many more people will be less inclined to vote 3rd party due to the polarization of opinions.

My Prediciton:

EV votes:
Bush: 331
Kerry: 207

Popular Vote:
Bush 51%
Kerry: 47.5%
Nader: 1%
3rd Party: 0.5%

My reasoning begins with the fact that Kerry is a rather lousy candidate. Even Michael Moore thinks so. People are going to be voting against Bush more than they are for Kerry. However, that will only get someone so much of the vote. Electoral Vote shows that Bush is polling at least 5% margin in states totalling 218 EV, while Kerry is only polling with a 5% lead in states with 171 EV. That leaves 139 up for grabs, within the realm of statistical margins of error. Even a split of the remaining EV votes gives Bush a 287-230 win, but I think at the end of the day, swing voters will see a strong leader in Bush and apathetic Democrats will stay home.

If my predicition is true, it'll stop some of the whining we've been hearing from partisan Democrats over the last 4 years about the selected president. I also hope it a wider margin so we don't have all the lawyers and legal challenges this year like we did in 2000. I hope that wasn't the start of a precident where every election is challenged in court. I also think that after the election, that the press and pundits will be wondering why the election seemed so close.

So much for Global Warming?

With reports that Britain will face a cold winter, what has happened to the “theory” of global warming? Undoubtedly global warming philes will have the answer. If the day is unusually hot, it’s because of global warming. If it is cold, then global warming is causing the Gulf Stream to be moved, hence it “actually being colder.” So no matter whether it is hot or it’s cold, global warming can be blamed. This is also all due to the fact that Bush pulled out of the Kyoto treaty as well.

Britain is about to be hit by one of the coldest winters in recent memory, according to the same weather experts who predicted 2004's Summer would be a washout. And the first chill of the coming freeze will arrive on Monday, the forecasters say.The people at Metcheck.com believe the country will be subjected to a series of cold fronts sweeping Britain until Christmas. And the New Year will bring even more icy
spells. Senior forecaster Andrew Bond said: "From what we are predicting,
Britain could see its coldest winter of the century so far. Sky News

Britian's National Healthcare Mess

Besides long waits and no choice, another problem with Britian's universal government controlled healthcare has been revealed. The government can cut off care if they so wish. Now the parents of baby Charlotte are at the mercy of a judge and have no choice to help continue the life of their child.

Sir Mark Hedley ruled that sick Charlotte should be allowed to die in the care of those who love her the most. He gave doctors consent not to resuscitate the seriously-ill tot if she stops breathing, despite Darren and wife Debbie’s legal battle to prolong her life....Mr Justice Hedley agreed with experts that “further aggressive treatment” was not in the best interests of the tot, who has spent her life in intensive care...The couple had been praying for a miracle cure for their daughter, the court heard. Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust had sought a court ruling after the Wyatts refused consent to let Charlotte die. The Sun

Vice Prez Debates

Although I wasn’t able to see the debate (only read the transcript online), Cheney beat Edwards like a rented mule. In the first debate, I thought it was more even. Cheney knew his facts and had Edwards ducking for cover. Edwards was the one repeating lines.

I thought the moderator did a little better job. Edwards had to duck a couple of questions namely “French and German officials have both said they have no intention even if John Kerry is elected of sending any troops into Iraq for any peacekeeping effort. Does that make your effort or your plan to internationalize this effort seem kind of naïve?” and “What is a global test if it's not a global veto?” Debate Transcript

A Preventable Death in Britian?

Although The Sun is a conservative paper, it is missing a key point (probably because it is in Britain). If the woman could have had a handgun, there is a good chance she would be alive. The woman had an injunction against her ex-husband and she had the 999 operator on the phone. Yet she died helpless and powerless. The old saying goes “a gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.” Unfortanutely some fail to see that gun ownership can help save innocent lives.

"THE final words of a terrified wife seconds before she was shot dead by her millionaire husband were revealed at an inquest yesterday. Trembling Julia Pemberton, 47, dialled 999 as she hid from rampaging financier Alan in a storeroom at the family house. He had already blasted their son William, 17, to death and was closing in on Julia as she desperately tried to summon help from an emergency operator. The wife, who had suffered years of abuse from Pemberton, said: “He has killed my son.” She added: “Oh God, I have about one minute before I die. I can hear him — he is coming through. “I am hiding in the storeroom. He will catch me. Here he comes. Oh my God, he’s come.” The operator heard the storeroom door open. Pemberton, brandishing a shotgun, snarled: “You f***ing whore.” Julia cried out — and the line went dead. After blasting healthcare worker Julia, 48-year-old Pemberton turned the gun on himself — leaving police to find three bodies at the £975,000 property in Hermitage, Berks. The couple split up acrimoniously after a 23-year marriage, the Reading inquest was told. Mum-of-two Julia made allegations of sexual and psychological abuse against Pemberton. And the volatile husband, who later moved in with a new love, responded with a barrage of death threats. The frightened wife, who had fought breast cancer, stayed in the five-bedroom Hermitage house while attempts ere made to sell it.

She handed in her husband’s shotguns and the family’s kitchen knives to police. She won a High Court injunction banning him from coming around. And the home was fitted with a panic button linked to a 999 call centre.....The Sun

The BIG Debate Question

With the first debate two days away, I have one big question. Will John Kerry be FOR the war or AGAINST the war during the debate? Or will he manage the feat of being for the war AND against the war during the debate?

Kerry Turns to the Economy

John Kerry has heeded advice of Clinton and has turned to the economy. I think it’ll be an uphill battle as the economy is in fair shape. Kerry, who by the way did NOT mention that he served in Vietnam, headlines a middle class tax cut, but later explains that all he will do is make the middle class tax cuts “permanent” while raising the taxes on those over 200,000. This is a cute political way of saying only that “he will not raise middle class taxes.” However, Clinton repeatedly promised a middle class tax CUT in his 1992 campaign, but then raised taxes for the middle class after being elected. I don’t think any sane candidate would promise a middle class tax increase. For the past two years, with several stances on the same issue, Kerry has a credibility problem. His rotating opinions have shattered any trust that he will do what he says.
As for the economy, the Dow stood at 10,578 the day GW Bush was sworn in, but dropped to under 7,181 in the months following 9/11. Today it stands tall again at 10,318. Unemployment has dropped to 5.4%. I don’t think the economy is as gloomy as described in the article and, I think Bush has done a rather good job in rebounding the economy.

With a decent economy, John, the main crisis facing America is still the war on terror. Remember, the President takes an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend” not “tax and spend.”

"My economic plan will do the following: (1) Create good jobs, (2) cut middle-class taxes and health-care costs, (3) restore America's competitive edge, and (4) cut the deficit and restore economic confidence." -John Kerry Wall St. Journal

Victory in the Blogosphere

The giant media out let, CBS, the Columbia Broadcast System, has been brought to its knees by some little known web loggers. It's think it's quite a coup for the little guy in the media world.

The whole CBS forget document scam really hurts the Democrats more than it did Bush. I’m confident was not Kerry, though. I think mostly likely theory was it was by some amateur from Moveon.org. Little does the amateur realize that is when it is exposed to be a fraud it hurts Kerry. Similarly, with Kitty Kelley’s new “Bush is a cokehead” book, is being squashed by the Dems because it contain not one real source. Such inaccuracy and wild accusations, will end up making Kerry look bad.

The long shot theory is that it was some loyal Clinton aide who wants to sink Kerry’s campaign to make way for Hillary in 2008. See my post on Friends of Bill.

Shame on CBS though. They are so blinded by their own partisan politics that they have surrendered all auspicies of impartiality. Anyone with half a brain can tell the document is faked. Experts had told them they were fake (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/bush_guard_documents_040914-1.html ) but CBS didn’t want to consider the truth. Edward R. Murrow must be turning in his grave.

Friends of Bill

Bill Clinton was giving advice to Kerry from his bedside at the hospital. Kerry has recently hired on many aides close to Clinton. Soon after that, CBS on 60 Minutes II has come up with a “memo” from supposedly, Bush’s commanding officer from 1973 saying that Bush was shirking his duties and he is being pressured to sugar-coat his record. This “memo” has been quickly debunked as a complete fraud but CBS stands by it authenticity. It was obviously done on Microsoft Word and ran through a copier for several generations to give the appearance of it being old. The “th” for numbers like 111th was superscript as is automatically done with Microsoft Word, but couldn’t be done with the typewriters of 1973, and one of the officers discussed had retired a year before. A reproduction written on Word superimposes exactly. Internet bloggers had quickly picked up on these errors. Now my post isn’t to discuss the memo itself, but…..

Do you think Bill Clinton, whose wife has definitely ruled out presidential runs in 2004 and 2012, would purposely give Kerry bad advice so he would lose? Would Clinton’s aides, such as James Carville, “unearth” this document and make it fake enough to be easily discovered as a fraud in order to sink the Kerry campaign? So would it be wise for Kerry to rely on Clinton and his aides so much, in lieu of Hillary's ambitions?

Putin Goes Global?

I agree with Putin on his stance to negotiate with the Islamic Chechen terrorists. He compared it to the White House negotiating with Bin Laden and he is quite right. Islamic fighters get trained and are pouring into Chechnya. It is the one of the hotspots that the Islamic terrorists dream of fighting in. I heard Putin on the BBC saying he would internationalize the fight against terrorism. Chechnya is getting money and fighters from many foreign lands. Where are these people getting trained?

Would the Russians invade a country they believe to be harbouring terrorism? If so, who?

Terrorism's Old Front

I agree with Putin on his stance to negotiate with the Islamic Chechen terrorists. He compared it to the White House negotiating with Bin Laden and he is quite right. Islamic fighters get trained and are pouring into Chechnya. It is the one of the hotspots that the Islamic terrorists dream of fighting in. I heard Putin on the BBC saying he would internationalize the fight against terrorism. Chechnya is getting money and fighters from many foreign lands. Where are these people getting trained?

Would the Russians invade a country they believe to be harbouring terrorism? If so, who?

The Hamburg Cell

I watched the TV movie, the Hamburg Cell last night on Britian’s Channel 4. It was a docu-drama of the story of 9/11 as seen through the eyes of one of the terrorists, Zeid Jarrah. My initial fear was that the movie would romanticize the terrorist movement. Although it put a human face on the terrorists, it didn’t show compassion or sympathy towards them. Jarrah was a Lebonese born Muslim who lead a fairly liberal lifestyle. The movie follows his life and involvement from the beginnings in 1996 to the fateful day in 2001. Beginning in 1997, Jarrah got slowly more and more involved with fanatics and Jihad. The band of terrorists moved to live and “study” in Hamburg. Their reoccurring complaint about the West is that Muslims are “dominated and humiliated.” Everyday their hatred grows. Jarrah went off to Afghanistan with the others in 1999 to train for Jihad. Jarrah has a girlfriend –then wife who remains normal and opposed to his involvement with fanatical Muslims. He ends up constantly lying to her and his family about his activities.

When I watched the film, I got an indirectly worse impression of Islam. It seems that the Muslims, who aren’t interested in jihad, are the ones that aren’t very religious. The more “religious” Jarrah became, the worse he treated his wife. The better Muslim he became the worse of a person he became. Scenes from a mosque in Egypt show the entire mosque, a “peaceful” religious institution, chanting death to America and the infidels. One of the terrorists is fanaticizing about becoming a martyr and hopes his burial is a “good Muslim burial,” which he explains that a good burial means that no women will be present or ever visit his grave. I got the impression, whether intended or not, that moderate Muslims were ones that weren’t very Muslim and were just basically Muslims-in-name-only.

It also made you think about the terrorists in a different aspect. In a country such as Syria, a child could grow up learning to hate America, hate Jews, and that he must die for Jihad from his family and his religious teachers. He brainlessly goes to Iraq to detonate himself on a bus full of children. He doesn’t know any better and hasn’t experienced life apart from learning about Jihad. These 9/11 terrorists, however, lived and worked in the West. Jarrah lived in Florida and saw that Americans weren’t horned devils. The fact that he interacted so much with normal people, but still wanted to kill the innocent, makes his crimes all the more worse.

The movie ends with the terrorists boarding the planes intermixed with video of 9/11 happening. Although it doesn’t show the actual hijacking, it does also put a very human face on the fellow passengers who were aboard the plane. It serves to remind everyone that 9/11 wasn’t just a death toll number, but an innocent 8 year old girl, a 40 year old father, a caring 60 year old grandmother, or an optimistic 24 year old stewardess. I think people should see the movie, because it serves a good reminder of 9/11.

The Hamburg Cell

On Thursday at 9pm, Britain’s Channel 4 will air a docu-drama, The Hamburg Cell, retelling the story of 9/11 through the view of one of the hijackers. In the previews for this movie, a hijacker is shown to be torn between his love and his love for jihad. I think this is a horrible idea as it will end up portraying the hijacker in a sympathetic light. At some point, the viewer will show some compassion towards the hijacker who helped murder 3000 innocent people.
Would anyone recommend a docu-drama to show the relationship with Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun during the final days in the bunker? How about Lord Haw-Haw’s last days Henrich Himmler and his wife? Would not viewers show compassion for Josef Stalin if he is shown grieving over the death of his first wife Ekaterina?
Viewers will undoubtedly sympathize, not necessarily with the methods, but the motivations of the hijackers. Viewers may be inclined to put the blame of 9/11 on the shoulders of the United States, instead on where it belongs, the evil men of Al Qaeda. Making a movie which will result in viewers showing compassion and understanding for mass murderers is deplorable and insulting to the families of the 9/11 victims.

Islamic Terrorism Continues

Muslim terrorists continue their global jihad by murdering hundreds of innocent Russian lives aboard two aircraft. Muslim terrorism will be the dominant world issue for decades.

There is even a lot of militancy within Islam and it has nothing to do with the US or Isreal, but with restricting freedom. In Algeria, in the 1990s terrorism was very widespread. Algerians had a good deal of freedom like women wore bikinis on the beach and can vote. However, there was the faction of Muslims who bombed and killed because the countrymen didn’t comply with a Saudi Arabia style of Islam. Women didn’t wear the burhka so buses were blown up. Over 100,000 people were killed.

Don’t forget for a minute that this same widespread faction of Muslims, aren’t salivating at the chance to do the same in America. Internal Algerian terrorism had nothing to with US support of Israel and their “illegal occupation of Palestine” either. It’s the 21st century fascism. It’s not rooted in nationalism, but religious fanaticism.

One of two Russian airliners that crashed nearly simultaneously was brought down by a terrorist act, officials said Friday, after finding traces of explosives in the plane's wreckage. A Web site connected to Islamic militants claimed the action was connected to Russia's fight against Chechen separatists. AP via Yahoo

Hypocrisy in the Air

I’ve read about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (www.swiftvets.com) and their claims against Kerry. Kerry has been defensive saying that these ads should not be aired.

Some say that you do not have the right to criticize Kerry if you are not a Veteran. However, Kerry has been campaigning on his Vietnam record for 30 years and even opened the convention by goofily stating that he was “reporting for duty.” I think the public reserves the right to examine that record. If a candidate was campaigning on his record as a businessman, the public would have the right to examine his performance even though they are not businessmen themselves. I wouldn’t want to focus on events that happened 35 years ago in order to make my choice for the President. However, constantly lying or exaggerating claims of bravery and heroics is not honorable. Kerry then continues to dig himself further in a hole, by now contradicting statements he has made for years (like being in Cambodia). I wouldn’t have any interest in whether or not he had exaggerated claims if he just focused on America today, instead of constantly injecting his Vietnam service into every statement. He rarely talks about his Senate record or what he would like to do for the country, but only his 4 months stint in Vietnam.

My main problem with everything is that Kerry has attack the airing of the ads, and even called on the publisher (Salon) of the book “Unfit for Command,” to recall the book. However, he has spent little time actually refuting the claims. Kerry’s team has called on Bush to repudiate the ads. However, where were the Democrats when Fahrenheit 9/11 was playing? (Oh they were in the audience!). That movie was filled with countless documented factual errors, yet I didn’t see Kerry or DNC denouncing the movie. Bush didn’t call Miramax and demand the film not to be shown, nor did Bush didn’t declare that the they sent Michael Moore to do Kerry’s dirty work (as Kerry said about Bush and the Swifties).

Kerry laughed it up when Fahrenheit 9/11 was raking in the box office dough, but now he expects special privileges?

Reminder from Britian: National Healthcare is a Disaster

Of course, it’s election time and those on the left love to rah-rah “free” health care. Most Democrats dream of innondating America with a hugely beaurocratic national healthcare system. These are headlines in only the last week in a quick scan of British news. Their so-called free health care is great if you don’t get sick. If you need surgery or a procedure, expect long waits. This is because it is a bloated government BEAUROCRACY. At least, if I don’t like my health care provider, I can switch!!! These poor Brits can’t do anything, yet it is “free.” Do you really want to face long waits if you need a procedure? Do you want to turn a visit to the doctor into a visit to the DMV? What’s worse is that

A Woman with an enlarged heart has had to wait more than two years for a scan, the Mail can reveal. Margaret Smith, 57, of Broadway, Goole, was first placed on a waiting list by her doctor in May 2002….. SICK kids in Renfrewshire are facing a six month wait for a vital test which helps to diagnose epilepsy. Shocking figures released yesterday reveal it can take up to 26 weeks for local children to receive a brain scan that allows doctors to discover exactly what is causing their seizures…. A FORMER NHS nurse suffering from malignant skin cancer was so disgusted with the prospect of waiting five months to see a specialist at Whipps Cross University Hospital that she turned to another hospital for treatment….. More than 100 beds are to close at a London hospital and thousands of patients kept off waiting lists because of NHS red tape, the Evening Standard has learned.

On the Olympics

Many people have commented on the lack of attendance at sporting events in the Olympics. I think this is tri-fold. The first being the lack of confidence in the public for the Greeks to provide adequate security. If they couldn’t build the arenas on time, what about security. (Now, however, the bulk of security, the US is providing now anyway). There is also a lack of facilities in Athens, like hotels. It’s also about how expense everything is. The announcers said that a ticket for the gymnastics final was €200 each, but scalpers were selling them for €100. It’s supply and demand. Do the organizers really think they will sell out when a ticket is costs €200, which is currently $240?
Everything from the cost of tickets to the cost of a hot dog become so unreasonably expensive that people stop going and the promoters and the politicians wonder why. It’s like baseball games. I would like to go to an Olympics someday, but I knew Athens wasn’t the place. It’s quite a dirty, congested city if you ask me.

Regarding the openings ceremonies, the Americans weren’t allowed (by the US) to carry and wave the little Americans flags for fear of offending someone. Simply Ridiculous.

In basketball, I am displeased with the American team. First off, it doesn’t deserve to be called a Dream Team. Almost every real NBA star had something better to do than play for the USA. The team is filled with a lot of rookies. Many seem to lack the character and class of the 1992 or 1996 teams. Tim Duncan seems to be the major standout. (And although I don’t like Iverson much, at least he came). The team only met 3 weeks before the Olympics to start practicing. So they do not seem to play well together. There are 5 individuals playing, instead of a team. I think they expected to waltz out onto the court and beat everyone without really trying. Then again, perhaps this reflects the attitude in the NBA. Gone are the days of shooting and defence. Now it’s dunks, swagger, and sneaker contracts. They’re not playing against children, and have deservingly lost. Perhaps not winning the gold would be a good thing. Perhaps it would be a wake up call to the NBA players to actually play and actually take it seriously.

IOC: Anti-Semitism is OKAY!

An Iranian was scheduled to face an Israeli in the first round of the judo competition, so he quit and forfeited the match instead. This is a low key story and hardly makes the press. If it was the other way around, would there be this outrage? The IOC is waffling about trying to ignore it. Reuters gives the story a pro-Arab spin, especially the first sentence. There is no mention of anti-Semitism or anyone’s outrage.

ATHENS (Reuters) - Iran has defied the Olympic spirit of sport without frontiers by refusing a judo fight against an Israeli at the Athens Games, insisting on putting political solidarity with the Palestinians before gold medals….Sidelined judoka Miresmaeili was quoted by Iran's official news agency IRNA as saying he "refused to face my Israeli rival in sympathy with the oppressed Palestinian people". But shunned Israeli opponent Ehud Vaks told Israeli Army radio he felt sure Mirasmaeili had no choice, and in Tehran a spokeswoman for Iran's Olympic committee said he was told to pull out, in line with national policy toward Israel. Iran's President Mohammad Khatami also left no doubt about the reasons behind the pullout, saying Miresmaeili's action should be "recorded in the history of Iranian glories". Among those lamenting the blight was spokesman Yaron Michaeli, who said the Israeli team "are sorry for the athlete because he is very good and could have won a gold medal". Reuters

The Press and Martyrs

I’m tired of hearing about the press’s fears of turning terrorists into martyrs. The press is constantly skeptical about fighting insurgency because of their overinflated fears of turning the criminal terrorists into martyrs. We constantly hear, about the “danger” of killing Al-Sadr because he would become a “martyr.” The same is true with Arafat, but it always used with every Muslim terrorist. The press said the same thing about the old Hamas “spiritual leader” that Israel waxed several months ago. Have the Palestinians done anything differently, before or after? Well, if anything, the 3rd new leader of Hamas (after Israel waxed the second one) has stayed underground. Contrary to press footage of several Iraqis protesting with the same dire photo of Al-Sadr pointing his finger, they Medhi army probably doesn’t have popular support.

What is probably true, is the longer Al-Sadr hangs around, the more importance he gets in the eyes of the world and the press. If the US had killed him a year ago, he would be have been blip in the pages of the press. Although I don’t think there’s a danger of martyrdom, there is a danger of Al-Sadr becoming “important”, like a Yasser Arafat, jr. He would then be much harder to get rid of.

Although eager to show themselves capable of crushing Iraq's bloody Shiite and Sunni insurgencies, Allawi and the U.S. want to avoid turning Sadr into a martyr in the eyes of his followers or harming the mosque, which could enrage Shiites the world over. Yahoo News

The Politics of War

If Bush wants to fulfil sceptical liberal predictions of “another Vietnam” then he should continue doing what he is doing. This seems to be the cycle: Insurgents cause violence. US assaults insurgents. Insurgents take losses and call cease fire. US agrees. Insurgents regroup and rearm. Insurgents cause violence.

Al-Sadr will never be a decent human being. There is no reason for negotiations with Al-Sadr. Everytime we assault and stop, more Marines die and it kills morale. Everytime our troops take a position and then abandon it, only to have to retake it later, more Marines die. Let's stop the politics.

The longer Al-Sadr is around, the more important he gets. Terrorist folks like Al-Sadr who have seen political fruits of his terrorism are likely to change. I feel there is a danger of him becoming, Yasser Arafat, junior. This is where he talks out of the left side of his mouth where he agrees to stopping violence for the return of money and political concessions, and where he continues to preach terrorism out of the right side of his mouth in an effort to extract more concessions. A man like Al-Sadr will not suddenly become a peaceful politician. He must be removed from any process.

For a President who defined sceptics to invade Iraq (rightfully) he certainly has taken a back step, overly worrying about Muslim sensitivities. I still like him, and he is doing a better job than Kerry would, but come on already… how many chances will we give Sadr, when he does deserve none?

U.S. and Iraqi forces scaled down an offensive against Shiite militiamen in the holy city Najaf Friday to let government officials pursue talks with supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr to end more than a week fighting, a military official said. Aides said the radical cleric had been wounded in the assault. Yahoo

On Gay Marriage

There are several fundamental problems with the gay rights and gay marriage issue. Although I disagree with “gay marriage” on religious terms, for civil-union terms, I am yet undecided. However, I do not like how the gay rights activists are forcing the issue on the courts. Polls continue to show that about 70% are against gay marriage. Since the right of gays to get “married” is not a constitutionally protected right, then it should be up to the people. It’s a legislative issue, but there are always activist judges who love to overstep their boundaries. Perhaps in 25 years, people will feel differently, but they don’t now. This is how a democracy works.
One argument the gay movement likes to use is to compare themselves to the civil rights movement. One of the big differences between civil rights movement and gay marriage is that there hasn’t any substantial scientific proof to show that being gay is purely genetic rather than a choice. This matters because the natural state is one of the deciding factors of affirming civil rights. Blacks became slaves because of their skin color. Women were denied the right to vote because of their sex. The Japanese were put into internment camps during World War II simply because of their ethnicity. Because skin color, sex, and ethnicity are basic human characteristics, we have a responsibility to guard against discrimination that penalizes these groups. If sexual preference is indeed an individual choice rather than a biological fact, then what civil rights need to be protected? The problem with the current crisis is that we are now shifting the civil rights debate from simple biology to personal choice. From homosexuality, it's a slippery slope to any number of lifestyle choices that people would want to claim civil rights over. Tolerance dictates that all people should be treated with dignity and respect. It does not, however, compel society to endorse someone's personal choice over the will of the majority.

The California Supreme Court voided the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco earlier this year, a move that will likely spur a new round of litigation about whether California's Constitution allows the weddings. The seven justices on Thursday all said Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to issue the licenses and perform the ceremonies violated a 1977 state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and woman. Yahoo News

Al-Sadr again

More from Iraq. Muqtada al-Sadr is at it again. When will the US put him down? While the US wants to create a new democracy in Iraq, they keep kowtowing to the old guard of the Arab Street. Al-Sadr is not going away. He will remain a thorn in the side of the new Iraq and America for as long as he is able to. If The US really wants to turn Iraq into Vietnam it will continue the half-hearted political approach to putting down the insurgency. Al-Sadr will become Arafat. The longer he is around, the more power he gets. Meanwhile, soldiers keep dying.

NAJAF, Iraq - Militant cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Shiite militia has been battling U.S. forces across Iraq, warned Monday that he would fight "until the last drop of my blood has been spilled," in his first appearance since the violence began. …. While U.S. and Iraqi forces were trying to quell the eruption of Shiite violence,
attacks by Sunni Muslim militants persisted around Baghdad: A suicide car bombing targeting a deputy governor killed six people, and a roadside bomb hit a bus, killing four passengers….. The U.S. military also said a U.S. Marine was killed in action Sunday in the western province of Anbar, a hotbed of Sunni militancy. The death brought to at least 927 the number of American troops who have died in Iraq. ….An insurgent group warned in a videotaped message it would launch a campaign of attacks on government offices in Baghdad, telling employees to stay away. Al-Sadr's militants also kidnapped a top Baghdad police official and demanded that their comrades in detention be freed.

Bobby Fischer's Stalemate

Former World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer’s arrest in Japan has certainly grabbed some headlines. He is in trouble with the US government for playing a rematch against Boris Spassky in Yugoslavia in 1992 against sanctions
 
Fischer had always been a bit of an eccentric. The Soviets had subtly harassed Fischer for years. Fischer’s response was to disagree with everything: time controls, playing conditions, match setup, no matter how fair they actually were, just to try to annoy the Soviets. It also stemmed from paranoia that if the Soviets agreed to it, it must be bad. One big reason the 1972 match happened at all was because his opponent, Boris Spassky is a very nice guy who just wanted to play chess.
 
As rational people, we can all be surprised and upset by Fischer’s decision to not play in 1975. Fischer laid out a list of 10 demands, most of which FIDE accepted. The big disagreement came with the match victory conditions. Previously, the World Championship match would be made up of 24 games, with the first player to 12.5 points, but Fischer was a proponent that the the first player to score ten wins winning the match, draws not counting. FIDE (the world chess body) refused and Fischer resigned. It is ironic that less than 10 years later, FIDE switched to a similar format. Although Fischer’s childish attitude wasn’t unfounded, he wasn’t able to rise above it and become a leader for the game. Thus the world was robbed of perhaps one of its greatest champions. It’s like as if Ali never fought after his jail time or if Jordan kept trying to play baseball.
 
The 1992 match was merely for money, but he had visions of grandeur that it was for the world championships. His post 9/11 anti-American and anti-Semitic rants are inexcusable and embarrassing as chess player and former fan. It is a little ironic how the American, Bobby Fischer is so vile, and the former “Soviet”, Gary Kasparov is intelligent and likeable. However, I’m not sure what extraditing him and trying him will actually achieve. I will watch US policies towards Fischer and Charles Jenkins, the soldier who defected to North Korean war during the war who has surfaced in Tokyo for surgery. Similar policies should be applied.

Un-Fahrenheit 9/11

Although I am often confused by the political position of Christopher Hitchens and have strongly disagreed with some of his writings, his critique on Michael Moore’s lie-fest was the most thorough which I’ve seen.

.....Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all. Now look again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been allowed to happen under any other administration, you can be sure that Moore and others would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or of having ignored, some fairly unmistakable "warnings."

Kofi wants money, not AIDS care

Beloved Kofi Annan take on the AIDS issue:

Annan was speaking on the sidelines of an international AIDS conference in
Bangkok where Washington's low-key presence, moral agenda and funding policies
on AIDS have come under attack. But a top U.S. government scientist defended
President George W. Bush's $15 billion (8 billion pounds) plan to fight the AIDS
epidemic that has killed 20 million people worldwide and infected 38 million.
"There is absolutely no diminished commitment in interacting internationally.
Look at the president's programmes. It's $15 billion," Dr. Tony Fauci, head of
the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told reporters. The
conference -- the biggest gathering of scientists, activists, drug company
bosses and AIDS sufferers -- has seen daily protests by activists shouting
"Shame, Shame" against Bush and other rich country leaders accused of failing to
support a U.N.-backed global AIDS fund….The Bush plan pledges $15 billion over
five years for care, prevention and treatment in 15 countries, mostly in Africa
and the Caribbean, which account for 70 percent of all infections. Critics say
Washington's bilateral effort undermines the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
tuberculosis and malaria that faces a funding shortfall. The United States is
already the biggest donor.Reuters

See the real problem isn’t the fact that the US isn’t doing enough. It’s the fact that Kofi wants US money in his pockets. If the US gives the UN “Global Fund” $15 billion, how easy would it be to skim millions? The US and American citizens want better control over their money. Kofi and UN doesn’t really care about AIDS in Africa, otherwise we would be satisfied with $15 billion in treatment. What he really wants is personal control over US money. Kofi was on Britian's Channel 4 last night saying how much better the UN could use the money. I can see through you Mr. Annan!

Polls on the Moral Justification of Wars

Recently I came across a Gallup Poll which asked people’s opinions on morally justified wars. One point I noted was Korea vs Vietnam. Both were quite similar in the background. The northern communist half invaded the democratic southern half. Both wars were fought to support the democratic South. I don’t see a difference in moral justification to those two wars. Now Korea was over after 3 years of fighting, but Vietnam dragged on for some 8 years. Now people could obviously find fault with the way Vietnam was fought or its bloody length, but the moral justification is no different than Korea. So why do 61% of people think Korea was morally just, but only 33% find Vietnam just?

Just/Not/ Unsure
WWII 90 – 7 – 3
Gulf 66 – 28 – 6
Korea 61 – 30 – 9
Iraq 49 – 49 – 2
Vietnam 33 – 62 – 5

Polling Report

Abstinence in HIV infection and a US Congresswomen

The following article from the AIDS conference in Bangkok caught my attention. Ugandi President Yoweri Museveni promotes abstinence over condoms as the ways to prevent new AIDS infections. However, this has sparked fury by the those who think condoms are answers to all problems.

U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Lee, the only member of Congress to attend the week-long meeting, accused the Bush administration of using ideology, not science, to dictate policy. She said the U.S. AIDS initiative requires that one-third of prevention funding go to "abstinence until marriage" programs. "In an age where five million people are newly infected each year and women and girls too often do not have the choice to abstain, an abstinence until marriage program is not only irresponsible, it's really inhumane," Lee said. "Abstaining from sex is oftentimes not a choice, and therefore their only hope in preventing HIV infection is the use of condoms," she added.

So if the girls in African countries “do not have the choice to abstain,” as claimed by Congresswomen Lee, then they are being raped. So if AIDS is being spread through widespread rape, then why is this not a topic of discussion. Secondly, if the girls are being raped, does Congresswomen Lee also think the rapists will also stop to use a condom?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040712/wl_nm/aids_dc_6

Election 2004: Bush vs. Not Bush

The AP has shockingly announced that Edwards has made little difference in polls. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that Kerry would be polling the same numbers, no matter who he picked. That's because Kerry fills the "not Bush" slot. This year's elections will be Bush or not Bush. No one will be voting FOR Kerry. Just about anyone the Democrats nominated would be polling the same numbers.

So can Bush defeat himself? I do see rumblings of alienation against Bush from conservatives. According to today’s Wall Street Journal : “Overall spending has grown from 18.4% to 20.2% of gross domestic product (under Bush)” and “discretionary spending has grown 43% since President Clinton left office.” Some also disagree with his lack of aggressiveness in stamping out insurgents in Fallujah. I don’t think attempts to “broaden the party” wins Bush many friends. Nonetheless, he will be much better than tax happy John Kerry, who by the way served in Vietnam.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040712/ap_on_el_pr/edwards__impact_11

The World Votes?!

I recently stumbled across a website called The World Votes, where disgruntled foreigners can “vote” in a mock US Presidential election in November. Although there is a disclaimer that it is not an anti-Bush website, it certainly has the format to be one. The basic rationale is that case for wanting to vote in an American election, because
the policies of the American president affect him. Its founder, Wiebe de Jager, of the Institute for Multiparty Democracy in The Hague. It rationale is:

….When Americans vote this year they will be electing a president who affects every person in the country, no matter what state he lives in or for whom she voted. However, the president Americans elect will also have a direct and often more profound effect on millions more who will not be allowed to vote at all in November's election: basically, everyone else in the world. If America were truly serious about democracy it would allow the citizens of Iraq, for example, to vote for the president of the United States. The real decisions about Iraq will be made in the United States -- and largely by its president -- for years to come. If Iraqis could vote for president, there would likely be a more full explanation from the current U.S. administration about exactly how many Iraqis died in the war, how the contracts for rebuilding Iraq and drilling its oil are being awarded, and how a plan would be implemented to ensure the electricity stays on and the water running. Under such an idea of democracy, however, the list of countries whose citizens should be able to vote for president extends well beyond Iraq. The United States has a military presence in approximately 140 countries around the world. It decides if and how AIDS drugs will be administered in Africa. It pushes for the privatization of energy in India while shaping land reform in Tajikistan. America's "War on Drugs" fills prison cells in Bolivia and Colombia. U.S. government-subsidized corn and cotton flood the world market, impoverishing farmers from Mexico to Egypt. America forces university funding to be cut in Nicaragua just as it determines whether Thailand or Argentina will get further loans or default on their debt. The U.S. Army holds the peace in Kosovo, helps fight off insurgents in the Philippines, and is the final word in Kabul. The president has the ability to shape all these policies. In short, his or her power over non-Americans is dramatic and sweeping…... The World Votes

I’m yawning now. Are you? Again, America is made out to be a villain. Every person in every third world country screaming, “America, what have you done for me lately?” Obviously, the foreign policies of all nations’ leaders affect each other. I would certainly want to vote in the upcoming North Korean, Iranian, and Saudi elections. Perhaps if Americans could have just voted in the Iraqi election, a war would not have been needed. Perhaps if African dictators didn’t stifle democracy, and turn a blind eye to the rapes and the wars that have spread AIDS, they wouldn’t have as serious of a problem. Perhaps if those dictators didn’t horde all the money, the people could have more money to pay for them themselves. Perhaps if such several socialistic economic policies in Argentina didn’t exist, their economy would improve and they would be able to repay their debt. Perhaps if Afghanistan didn’t have a government that harboured and trained terrorists to attack civilians in New York, then an invasion wouldn’t have been necessary. Perhaps that could have been stopped if we were able to vote in the Afghani elections in 2000. Oh, wait there were none. If Mugabe of Zimbabwe didn’t institute land reforms, Zimbabwe would still be exporting agricultural products instead of being in a famine.

These days, everyone wants to make out America to be the bad guy and I’m tired of it. Perhaps if citizens of other countries who “want to vote in US elections,” could clean up their own countries first, then American foriegn policy wouldn't effect them much.

Al Sadr will come back to haunt Iraq

I read that al-Yawar has invited "rebel" Shite cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr to join Iraqi politics after the June 30th US handover.

Do you think if al-Sadr is not arrested and tried, he will come back to haunt the fledgling democracy with his terroristic tactics?

I believe he may even be lie low for a few months until the American troops leave, and then make a forceful grab for power against the Iraqi government. He has learned that he will not be punished for his terrorist activities (and murder of fellow cleric). He will not be inclined to continue to use force to gain what he wants (power.)

Brief History of the Israel-Palestinian Conflict Part 2. 1950-

Facts:
In 1956, Arab nationalist and Egyptian dictator, Gamal Nassar had been using his “fedayeen” to launch terrorist incursions into Israel. Then Nassar seized the Suez Canal which was under British and French control. Britain, France, and Israel formed a secret alliance and decided to attack Egypt. The invasion was a military success, but a political disaster as the US forced an early ceasefire. Israel had captured Sinai and Gaza, but US pressure forced them to quickly return these captured gains. Following the Suez war, Nassar aligned himself completely with the Soviet Union. Before and during Suez, the US was not an ally of Israel. Only following the increased Soviet intervention in Egypt did US align itself with Israel.
 
In 1967, Nassar marched troops passed UN peacekeepers in Sinai and amassed an army on the border of Israel. Syria and a reluctant Jordan followed suit. Due to imposing threats, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack, winning the 6 Day War. Israel had captured the West Bank, Gaza, and Sinai. In the wake of a humilitating defeat, Nassar began the War of Attrition with Israel from 1968-1970. The limited war was designed to harass Israel’s occupation of Sinai in light of limited supply of manpower. It ended with no change to the border. After Nassar died in 1970, Anwar Sadat assumed power and was determined to regain the Sinai Peninsula.
 
In 1973, Egypt and Syria launch a surprise attack on Israel. This was the Yom Kippur War. After initial heavy loses, Israel was able to counter attack and defeat Egypt and Syria. They regained all territory lost in the beginning of the war and the borders remained the same. Anger over the aid in equipment supplied by America started the OPEC oil embargo. Beginning in late 1977, relations between Sadat and Begin warmed and in 1979 on a conference at Camp David, they signed a peace agreement. Israel returned Sinai to Egypt. In 1982, PLO’s terrorist raids from Lebanon led to its invasion. By 1985, most of the troops had been removed except for a security zone which was vacated in 2000. The first Palestinian infitada began in 1987. By 1993, Israel and the PLO were signed the Oslo Accords which gave some provisional authority to Palestinian self government. In 1994, Israel and Jordan signed a peace agreement. Jordan has not been interested in taking back the West Bank because the Palestinians had been a threat to the reign Jordan’s king. In 1995, another interim treaty was signed by Yitzak Rabin and Arafat. After Rabin’s assassination by a Jewish radical, negotiations labored on but were soured by terrorism when Netanyahu was Prime Minsiter. In 2000, Labor Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. Arafat rejected Barak's offer, because Arafat demanded a “right to return.” Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Al-Aqsa compound sparked the second infitada. Israeli citizens who legitimately tried to make concessions for peace, were dismayed by the violence and elected Ariel Sharon in order to combat the terrorism.
 
Opinions:
This is a basic history of conflict. Historical context is important to understand what is happening today. However, Israel has not been the evil aggressor it is made out to be. Media terms like “cycle of violence” equate suicide bombers to Israeli responses. Peace will not be had when factions like Hamas and Fatah are bent on Israel’s destruction. Arafat is not interested in peace. The longer the “struggle” continues, the more world attention he gets and more money he gets.

Brief History of the Israel-Palestinian Conflict Part 1. 1919-1950

The Facts:

The area known as Palestine had been under control of the Ottoman Empire since the 16th century. The Sykes-Picot Treaty broke up the Ottoman Empire following its defeat in World War I. The area of Palestine was placed under control of the British and was known as the British mandate. During the time between the world wars, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased following persecution and anti-Semitism in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. The British made several attempts to divide Palestine into two separate Jewish and Palestinian countries due to ongoing violence between the two peoples. None of these succeeded. Following WWII, the frustrated British handed control of Palestinian to the newly created United Nations.

The United Nations devised a plan to create two countries. Israel agreed and declared independence, but the Palestinians did not, Instead they decided to attack the fledgling Israeli state with the help of its Arab neighbours, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. Although losing at first, Israel won the war and armistice agreements were sign in 1949. Israel gained some of the land that had been designated as Palestinian by the UN. What is now known as the West Bank became part of Jordan, Gaza became part of Egypt, and the Golan Heights were part of Syria. A country called “Palestine” has never existed in the past 500+ years. As a result of the 1948 war, there about 750,000 Palestinian refugees and 600,000 Jewish refugees, whom were kicked out of Arab countries. The Jewish refugees were absorbed into Israel, but the Palestinian refugees were not permitted to settle in neighbouring Arab countries, instead being held in refugee camps, where many remain today.

My Opinion:

The question of a “Palestinian right of return” is the demand for these Palestinian refugees to return and reclaim their old pre-1948 land and houses, which is now firmly part of Israel and lived on and owned by hundred of thousands of Israelis for several generations. This would lead to essentially the destruction of Israel and will never be accepted by any Israeli government. It would be like Native American Indians demanding Manhattan Island being returned to them. In the 2000 Camp David Accords, this was the only demand not willing to be accepted by Ehud Barak out of all of Yassar Arafat’s demands.

Palestine gambled on defeating Israel in 1948 and lost. They gave up their best chance for statehood, when they attacked Israel. This is a similar situation with the West Bank and Gaza today where lost wars by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria against Israel caused them to lose territory. If you go to a casino, gamble and loose, you cannot whine until you get your money back. There are parts of Germany or Russia, which are now part of another country, because of lost wars. The resulting Palestinian situation has never gotten better because they are used as pawns again Israel. They are not permitted to resettle in other Arab countries, still living in poverty and temporary camps.

A President to Remember

Coincidentally the day was also marked with the death of former President Ronald Reagan at 93. Even if I live to be 100 years old, it is probable that the greatest president of my lifetime will have been elected when I was two. He reminded the world what it meant to be a leader. He lead the country with conviction and through his beliefs, not by the opinions of focus groups. He couldn’t care about what his detractors had to say about him. He did what he thought was right and had people thanking him for it afterwards. He never tried to be popular leader, just a good one.

It was sad that the press couldn’t refrain from speaking ill of him, slighting him with a dose of class warfare for once last time. His legacy will be fondly remembered my millions of Americans despite what they may say.

A Day for Honor

Yesterday marked two great events. The first was the 60th anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy, France. You learned in school about how brave men fought for America in World War II. However, it is necessary to revisit their bravery and sacrifice. Their average age was 20 and they were given the task of saving humanity. They left their farms to go to a foreign land to fight for freedom. Their sacrifice is enjoyed by millions today. Many were killed so we could be here today. It’s easy to forget, but there are thousands of men who didn’t live to be even 26. In the words of one of the veterans who was speaking at the ceremonies:

“They shall not grow old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. “

A funny antidote I remember was the fact that when I was in grade school: My brother had told me I was born the day before D-Day, so I repeated that one day in class for some reason. I didn’t really know what it was, of course, the kids didn’t know what “D-day” was, but the teacher had no idea either! A middle aged woman, in the 1980s had no idea what D-Day was.

The struggle continues today. The men who fight in Iraq need to be appreciated more. It is high time that Americans be united on the fight of terror. The veterans of Iraq are just as brave. They fight terrorists in Iraq so they don’t fight in America. When we go to work without fear, we have to thank our military.

Here in Aberdeen when they had the commemorations for the 60th anniversary of D-day, they hung some Union Jack flags, but they also hung rainbow flags. Why, you ask?..."to commemorate gay people were persecuted by the Nazis." Well, so were Jews and Catholics. The point is that it was D-day commemoration and putting up rainbow flags took something away from the brave men that fought. Gays could commemorate on another day.

The Religion of Peace

Is Islam a religion of peace? The PC world says “yes”, but many say “no” as Muslim-begat violence persists. I think with all the horrible things you hear in the news, it is easy to start believing that all Muslims are vile. Terrorism is not even limited to the US or Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Muslim extremists have been taking the fight to Nigeria and have attacked in Thailand. The US policy on Israel has nothing to do with that. The Koran is littered with dodgy verses about killing infidels.

Nonetheless, I can't say I agree that Islam is a religion of violence. If it was, we would have a lot worse problems than we do today. Although Islam is mired in problems, I don't think all or even many Muslims are evil. There are a lot of problems with Islam, such as apathetic "moderate" clerics. There are evil men in the world trying to gain power. They can either use nationalism or religion to bind people together.

Even if the Koran had a more peaceful message, people could still infer any rationalization in order to justify their opinion. People do it everywhere, and it isn’t limited to holy books. Somehow our own Supreme Court deemed that sodomy was a constitutionally protect right, yet even more unbelievable, is that affirmative action and racial quotas are also somehow constitutionally acceptable. Perhaps the Koran is a “living, breathing” document.

Equate Muslims to the Germans during WWII. Not all Germans were Nazis. Many Germans were good people. Some got suckered in by propaganda, but many had nothing to do with WWII. There were many that were similarly apathetic to the persecution of the Jews. Some dissenters were summarily executed and the rest remained silent. Today, Germany is quite different. It took a massive war and many sacrifices to sort them out and welcome them back to civilization. Although another undertaking is necessary to defeat the Islamofacists, that doesn't mean every Muslim is evil. Hopefully, we don’t wait until it is too late.

I came upon this quotation from famed British Prime Minister Winston Churchill which is worth reading as some of the problems we face with Islam are similar to those over 100 years ago. His comments on Islam from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248 50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899):

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine‹must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled‹the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

The U.S. is underappreciated

“If the US acted more like Norway (or Sweden, etc) we wouldn’t have all of these problems with Islam. It’s the fact that Americans are so insensitive to other cultures…” I heard and read stuff like that recently. The US has taken a public relations bashing over the past two years. “Bush is a thicked head cowboy.” Many Europeans wonder if the Americans could be more like them, the problem with Islam wouldn’t exist. I say “bull.” The "Norways" of the world are covered in an umbrella protect by the United States. The U.S. is the big man on the block and obviously the target. If America’s resolve fell to militant Islam, these small Western European countries would be under attack.

If the US didn’t stand up to militant Islam, who would? I’m tired of the US taking a beating, while they are the only ones willing to stand up to these thugs. The US is underappreciated.

Staying the Course

I can only hope Bush finds the wisdom to stay the course in Iraq. I hope he doesn’t become scared politically by the impending elections. The media coverage shows purely awful things in Iraq. Suicide bombers, ambushes, and kidnapping made me start to think quite poorly of all Muslims. You start to question the invasion as it started to seem unappreciated. It would seem that most Iraqis couldn’t have cared less about being free. After a while you think they are all barbarians. I’ve recently started reading Iraqi’s blogs and it’s a good reminder of the real people that are being helped.

The media coverage has been pathetic in its attempt to subtly dissuade people that the war (and Bush) was wrong. I don’t understand how so many self proclaimed “liberals” could essentially support a ruthless dictator. I think it’s their hatred of GW Bush that makes them oppose anything and everything he does; even if that means supporting a ruthless dictator. If there is one thing that will help the Iraq effort, it will be the internet. The big media cannot prevent the real voices from being heard. Without it, and without pro-active democracy minded Iraqis, support for the cause would be greatly diminished.

What the Shiite is going on?

It looks as though the Mexican standoff in Najaf with evil cleric Al-Sadr has turned into a mutual retreat (see AP news link below). This leads me to ask the question, What the Shiite is going on?

The U.S.-run coalition will "honor and respect" a deal to remove Shiite militiamen and American soldiers from Najaf, an Iraqi official said Thursday, even though fine points of the agreement fall short of previous U.S. demands to end weeks of fighting. Members of Iraq (news - web sites)'s Governing Council traveled to Najaf to help nail down the agreement after radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr offered to withdraw his militia from Najaf and neighboring Kufa in return for a pullback of U.S. troops and suspension of a warrant charging him in the April 2003 murder of a moderate cleric.

Why are we negotiating with this terrorist? There has been too much sensitivity about “holy” cities and the ability of American troops to attack. The more politics are injected in quelling the rebellion, the more America will be hurt. All this goes to show the Arab world how easy it is to defeat American troops. Al-Sadr’s position should have been subject to a full assault. As the 2004 election approaches, I believe Bush worries more about the election and public perception to Iraq. If Al-Sadr is able to “go free,” he will come back to haunt us.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040527/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_26

Like Americans, Hate Bush

Like America/Americans, Hate Bush. This is the European attitude. Over here in Britain, I find almost all British are friendly people and like Americans. Everyone either liked their visit to America or wish to go soon. Many, however, do not like George Bush. The rest are otherwise ambivalent about him. I’ve met a lot of people who can’t wait to “discuss politics with an American.” “Why is Bush so stupid?” is a question I get asked often. Other times I am forced to explain that he is not retarded; he just has a Southern accent and speaks slower. Many can’t fathom how he could have possibly got elected or that 50 million people voted for him. They think that 48 million must regret their vote. The problem only gets worse if you go over to the continent.

Much of it is media driven. The BBC dominates the news with Channel 4 in lockstep. Bookstores are lined with liberal authors such as Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, while you are hard-pressed to find one conservative book. The culture of Bush-hatred is enormous and dominating. Although there is a big like-Americans, hate Bush syndrome in Europe, they forget that Bush is America….or a big red part of it.

Moore Predicitions

Now, everyone is a blogger! I will begin the inaugural post with a rant on Michael Moore. Most people have a love/hate relationship with Michael Moore. You either love him or hate him. Personally, I think it’s shameful how he twists and distorts facts and presents it as truth. I might as well start off with a prediction. I predict failure for the Moore movie. It will not necessarily be a financial failure, but one of Moore’s aims is to bring down Bush. I don’t think it will have any impact on the course of the election. Of course, measuring the political result of this prediction will be difficult, although perhaps there will be a poll questioning the movie’s influence would suffice.

Before Bowling for Columbine, many people didn’t know a lot about Michael Moore. A movie was made about gun ownership and enough people saw it. According to Wikipedia, Bowling for Columbine grossed $21,575,207 in the US. Gun ownership is easy to attack, as many people mistakenly believe the media hype that more gun laws = less crime. So there is a lot of sympathy for gun control amongst average Americans. Since that movie and his Oscar win, everyone (who is cares about current events enough to vote), now knows where Michael Moore stands. However, while people are more sympathetic to gun control, many aren’t rabid America-haters and they know this film will be pure slander.

So all the Angry Leftists in America will line up to see the movie and confirm how right they’ve been about Bush. Everyone on the Right will refuse to see the movie. Only few in the middle may watch the movie to see “what all the hype is about.” Of those people, I think only a minority will be swayed as the majority will be sceptical of its vast claims.

While the movie won’t be a financial disaster, it will fail to carry the political impact that Moore is hoping for. Worldwide, the movie will do well, if not better. So, Moore will just be preaching to the choir and laughing all the way to the bank.