Buried very quietly on most media pages is what I think is one of the biggest events of the year:
U.N. Nuclear Inspectors Confirm Shutdown on North Korean Reactor
On Fox, this didn’t garner nearly the attention Lindsay Lohan‘s ankle bracelet or Jessica Simpson’s boobs got. Not even close. However, when history looks back at 2007, North Korea bowing down to world pressure instead of guns will prove a much bigger story.
I’m waiting for Nancy Pelosi to brag about this huge diplomatic coup. Putting two and two together yet? If not, I’ll help you:
- It’s not sexy enough for media.
- Bashing Bush is the norm, praising Bush scares people.
- You don’t have anyone touting Bush right now. The Democrats won’t do it in a billion years, most media won’t in a billion years, and the Republicans that should are all too concerned about their own campaigns to take the chance.
This sucks. Because in my opinion, this is HUGE.
Michael Chertoff created a buzz, and has done a weak job dealing with it. Basically he insinuated there’s a growing threat from Al Qaeda due to increased chatter. What he has not done is say there is an increased threat from Al Qaeda due to increased chatter. He upped that concern by saying it’s something like pre-9/11. That’s pretty serious. What he won’t do is say what we’re doing on a preemptive measure to deal with all that chatter.
I have an idea.
The general assumption ( yeah, I know what assuming does ), is that Osama Bin Laden is in northern Pakistan. The US military and Pakistani military both claim that area is dominated by tribal chiefs and such and are so dangerous even the US military can’t go in to deal with it. Along the same lines, the US and Russia have agreed to lower their nuclear arsenal levels by eliminating some outdated missiles and warheads. Well, I got a suggestion:
Let’s put all those unnecessary nukes right about here:
To be civilized about it, we create a bunch of chatter telling people who do not belong to Al Qaeda to get out first. Then, just turn those rocky craggy hills and mountains filled with Al Qaeda and other too-dangerous-for-civilized-man types into rocky craggy hills and mountains with no man at all. Nothing lost in doing that. Then, in a few years, we can try again and see if we can do better this time.
I’m welcome to hear the downside of this plan. But, at this time, I see none.
And, if nothing else, at the very least we’d be creating some chatter of our own other than the chatter we’re sending out now that we’re too scared to say anything that might deter them in the from place.
UPDATE: July 13, 2007: Ed Morrissey does an excellent post on this topic over at Captain’s Quarters. Not so much on the topic I made in this post, but the underlying causes of why I made this post that have been elaborated on in the comments. A must read if you have any interest in this topic ( Pakistan and Al Qaeda, not nukes. )
29
May
Nah, this isn’t going to be your typical illegal alien rant. This is much more important:
The Don attributed their rude behavior to protest of US immigration policies. However, that doesn’t condone them attacking an innocent person, and they know that. So, it was just plain rude and totally inappropriate. I think an apology from whoever it is that is the Mexican presidente would be greatly appreciated by those of us IN the United States propping up his economy by employing those workers who apparently can’t get a job there. If he wishes for us to continue doing so, he better start giving us reasons to LIKE Mexico and a few less reasons to NOT like Mexico. The reason the immigration policy is so popular here and so unpopular there is it keeps the thugs, drugs, and criminals THERE and not HERE. That’s not Rachel Smith’s fault, it’s theirs.
File this one under jerks of the day as well.
Other opinions:
President Bush’s favorability rating has hit traditional lows for a lame-duck president. Congress’s approvals are pretty much where they always are, which is pretty miserable. However, a LOT of people are saying this proves we need to be out of Iraq whether it means cutting and running, handing an entire country and military over to terrorists, or allowing chaos to totally overwhelm the entire Middle East.
I got a real problem with all this assuming.
I subscribe to a polling service called Vizu. Basically anyone can make a poll for any reason they like. I make them all the time. I love polls. However, polls are dangerous. Vizu IMO very clearly illustrates why. If you search on Vizu for “the war in Iraq”, you’ll get about 40+ polls. Some worded differently, many worded exactly the same. The most commonly worded one is “Do you support the war in Iraq?” Now, before I get to the result, think about how it’s worded. Who really wants a war anywhere? Pretty stupid question if you ask me. There’s only a hand full of people on this planet who really “want” a war. There are some who want to support out troops, so they’ll read the question a little differently. There are some who understand why we’re there, so they’ll support it. But, in order to justify answering that question positively, you have to add something to the question. So, actually I’m kind of surprised that that question merits only on average about 70% of the respondents “against” a war. Any war. The way it’s worded, Iraq is “just” a war.
Then there are polls worded a little differently, “Is the war pointless“. Now, along with that 71% that are against “the war in Iraq”, 72% think the war in Iraq is pointless. What that tells me is 72%, which is amazingly similar to 71%, don’t have a clue what’s going. And, I’ll bet, 72% don’t want to. Because if they did, they’d probably feel more compelled to support the war in Iraq. And, most people don’t want to support a war. Any war.
I think those numbers are fairly constant across the US. No one wants to support a war. So, the media, and some vested political interests, take each and every single poll they can, and connect the dots that since Bush’s ratings are so low, it’s BECAUSE people are against a very specific war. In order for that to be true, those 70% would have had to have been neutral at some point, and switched their minds at some point. That’s not what’s happening here folks. Sure, some have, but IMO what is happening is the media in general have appealed to a prevailing sentiment of people not wanting to “support” any way, and applying that to a specific circumstance that is Iraq. They’re push-polling and trying to affect national issues with the results they push.
Now, what would happen, do you think, if that question were asked a little differently? It applies to the exact same circumstance, only it’s more specific.
See what I mean? Although 70% of the people might be against supporting a war, any war, 100% of the people don’t want to “support” Al Qaeda. Not too many people would respond to that question tho. Because, if they did, they’d be supporting a war. A war in Iraq.
17
Mar
A lot of people have absolutely ignored all the history of WMD’s in Iraq and made the constant claim "Bush lied, people died". Hell, some will tell you there were NEVER WMD’s in Iraq. Ever. Totally ignoring all the documentation and UN actions against Iraq because of them. They’ll tell you that the stockpiled WMD’s that the UN was assigned to monitor and protect never existed as well. Now, I’m sure they’ll tell you the chlorine gas attacks in Iraq don’t count either for some reason or another. I mean, how can you use something that never existed?
SOME people like me were saying they did exist, and were hidden or taken out of the country to somewhere else to be used at a later time……
Why is it I don’t feel any particular satisfaction having predicted this years ago?
25
Feb
In keeping with their long, proud history of surrendering BEFORE anyone else can, France has surrendered this time to that mighty military machine of the Middle East, Palestine.
Of course, in surrendering to the not-quite-a-country that is Palestine, they refused to give up any money. Which was all Abbas was actually looking for. Just curious, has a country ever surrendered when no one was asking them to?
Found this on one from L’Ombre de l’Oliver. China gave the island country of Grenada some money to fix their soccer cricket stadium that was destroyed by Hurricane Ivan. Grenada in turn decided to show their appreciation in the form of a ceremony. During the ceremony:
The Chinese envoy to the Caribbean nation was visibly uncomfortable as the Royal Grenada Police Band performed Taiwan’s anthem.
"The unfortunate error breaks my heart," Grenada’s prime minister said.
"I am very saddened," said Prime Minister Keith Mitchell, promising a detailed inquiry.
Good thing they got the money BEFORE honoring the Chinese!
31
Jan
Iraq has been providing weapons and soldiers to kill our people in Iraq. And, they’ve been doing pretty much the same thing wherever they can. So, imagine their surprise and probable disgust when they got this news today:
Pentagon stops F-14 parts sales to Iran
I feel so much better now. I’m sure our people in Iraq do as well.
Now, before I let this get TOO far out of hand, here’s the entire story:
The Pentagons move followed a report by The Associated Press this month on the F-14 surplus sales plans. An AP investigation found buyers for Iran, China and other countries had exploited gaps in sales security to get their hands on sensitive military equipment. The purchases included parts for the F-14 and other aircraft and missile components. Law enforcement officials say that in at least one case the contraband made it to Iran.
John Kerry, who’s been on security commissions since the dawn of man, had this to contribute:
The Pentagons decision to suspend sales of surplus F-14 parts is welcome news, said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who had requested a Senate inquiry into surplus security following the AP report. In this era of instability, we can hardly afford to be sloppy about something as sensitive as our national security.
In the time it takes to finish one of his Senate inquiries, the "Struggle" in the Middle East will be over. Senator Ron Wyden is more my kind of guy. This is what he had to say:
The only way to ensure that America doesnt arm Iran is for the U.S. to permanently stop selling these weapons parts, Wyden said. This review does not do that and I am going to press on until it happens.
There’s a huge difference between the path Kerry wants to take and the path Wyden wants to take. I’m on Wyden’s side. Stop this silliness now. As time goes by, if the Pentagon can assure these parts don’t wind up in the wrong hands, THEN resume sales. Kerry’s plan just assures more of these parts will wind up in the wrong hands while his inquiries go where they almost always go. Nowhere. Contact your representative and tell them to support S. 387.
28
Dec
The United Nations has released this advertisement for US consumption:
I really don’t want my kid seeing this advertisement. You think he’d want to play soccer if he saw it? Once again, the United Nations is proving how useless they truly have become. This is just stupid.
25
Dec
This was a rather heavy read for a late Christmas night:
Iran is suffering a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports, and if the trend continues income could disappear by 2015, a National Academy of Sciences analysis found.
And, I stumbled on this while trying to find the actual source document for the above information:
"The budget allocated to the government will run out by the end of (the Iranian month of) Azar (December 22)," the agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.
"We are going to put forward a supplementary budget bill to cover the three remaining months (of the Iranian year, ending on March 20 2007) and the first two months of next year.
The president did not give a reason why the budget had run over.
Now, Roger Stern ( NAS ), assumes we can peacefully wait out the current Iranian crisis. However, I don’t think it’s going to be quite that simple. Apparently the Iranian government realizes it’s hitting a crisis already, hence the rush for nuclear power. Now, with Iraq totally destabilized, Pakistan almost always destabilized, and several other Middle Eastern countries in a proverbial mess, I’m not sure a destabilized Iran is a good thing. Althought the government may go belly up, that doesn’t mean a lot of individuals have made a gazillion bucks already. I am assuming Stern thinks that once the Iranian coffers are bare, they’ll peacefully enter the civilized world and quit doing the bad things the US is fighting against. I think Stern, if that is truly his thinking, is horribly naive. Even with the total collapse of government rule in Iraq, with the offer to assist them in forming the government of their choice, the Iraqis have chosen to a large degree to endorse total chaos based on very selective religious preferences. It’s not good enough that they are all Muslem, you have to be a certain KIND of Muslem to avoid the car bombs and death squads. That’s how deep these fanatic convictions go. I can’t see how Iran is any different than the Cradle of Mankind. If the Iranian government does go broke, and the military collapses with it, we’ll just get more fanatical chaos. That hasn’t done the US any good at all. It was the chaos in Afghanistan that allowed one individual to garner so much influence and power that he could destroy the World Trade Centers in New York CIty, USA, while never leavind his cave. So, I can’t go along with Stern’s conclusion that the Iranian situation could resolve itself peacefully if we just wait it out. Chaos has never benefitted the US or the world and only leaves voids for tyrants and radicals to fill.
Now, what I think will work is to allow the Russians to give the Iranians all the energy, via nuclear power, they want. However, until Iran is more stable and world-friendly, just run lines INTO Iran.
And until those lines are finished, bomb the hell out of any nuclear plants Iran builds.
