A lot is being made of the Straight of Hormuz incident between the US and Iran a few days ago. The US claims it was harassed and provoked, the Iranians said originally it never happened. You be the judge, here IS the incident as provided by The Pentagon:
Now that the whole world can see it, the Iranians are claiming the video was altered or contrived.
The part I love the most about this is the US Department of Defense FINALLY seems to be getting it. It doesn’t matter if they are right or wrong, aggressor or victim. It only matters how you present it. I really like the fact the US gave Iran a couple of days to pin themselves in a corner with their denials BEFORE releasing the video.
For once, although a lot of people will find ways to contrive the US being at fault here, the evidence is pretty damn clear who’s provoking who here.
Oh, and don’t start the “we shouldn’t be in the Middle East” crap here, that happened in international waters that every single country on this planet has the right to be in.
27
Dec
I am reading right now that Benazir Bhutto died in the suicide attack on her rally.
This is awful news.
I have heard a lot of speculation that Al Qaeda has focused on Pakistan since it’s getting its butt kicked in Iraq and Afghanistan. That makes sense. What doesn’t make sense there is attacking Bhutto. Musharraf is unpopular and losing international support. His crackdown a month ago and subsequent agreement to leave the military only weakened him. Killing Bhutto only makes the actions of Musharraf look like they were the right thing to do at the right time. This is all Musharraf needs to go back to his international supporters and get more help, both economically and militarily. He has done what the international leaders have asked, and this is where it has lead. Maybe we need to listen to him a little more and those not living there a little less.
On the flipside of the issue, although Al Qaeda has been fingered, this sure fits conveniently into Musharraf’s political needs. With an election next month, it looked to the average outsider that Musharraf’s days were numbered. He even hinted as such agreeing to be the Prime Minister. All of that was purely based on the assumption that Bhutto was going to win. Scratch all that. Nothing changes.
I have felt for six years we need to be IN Pakistan moreso than either Afghanistan or Iraq. Afghanistan can be a pain in the butt, but they have no organized government and no ability to mount a military. Iraq was a roaring pussycat. A pain in the butt for sure, but once we went in, there was obviously nothing tangible there. In both cases, I liked going in. In both cases, I think we’ve stayed too long and haven’t watched over them in a true 21st century military fashion. Pakistan’s a different animal entirely. They have nukes. There’s no question, there’s no doubt. They have them. They have a good sized army. Not terribly motivated or organized, but they have one. They also have a horribly ineffective and weak government. The death of Bhutto is just another prime example of how ineffectively that government can protect itself ( if it wishes to ). I also see even more destabilization as protests against Musharraf/Al Qaeda mount. If Musharraf clamps down on Al Qaeda, the warlords resist. I don’t think he has the manpower to deal with them all. Enter the US. Exit Iraq and Afghanistan and keep satellites with missiles aimed directly at their capitol buildings until they show they can behave civilly.
Take all those troops and put them in Pakistan. Make sure those nukes are safe. And, kill Osama Bin Laden. Once he’s dead, and the Pakistanis prove they can respect a government they choose, then get our troops out pronto and put a couple of satellites with missiles pointed right at their capitol as well.
It’s really that simple.
Other Views:
- Michelle Malkin - She’s going exclusively with the Jihadist angles. I’m not ready to rule out other interests yet.
- JammieWearingFool
- AllahPundit has some pics from the scene. Needless to say, use caution.
This clip on Memritv to me perfectly illustrates the difference in cultures of “the evil Satan” of the West and “the religion of Peace” of the Middle East:
Saudi Cleric Muhammad Al-’Arifi Explains Wife Beating in Islam to Young Muslims in a Ramadhan Show
That’s just nuts by my standard. If I could ask Al-Arifi one question, it would just be exactly where “the religion of peace” draws the line.
When the Democrats were in the minority, they badgered Bush to death as being a shoot from the hip cowboy ready to take aim at anyone that he had an issue with. The difference now it seems is the Democrats are pretty much in the same boat, except there’s no logic to who they’re shooting at. To wit, Adam Schiff sponsored a resolution summarized as thus:
- The House of Representatives–
- (1) calls upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the failure to realize a just resolution; and
- (2) calls upon the President in the President’s annual message commemorating the Armenian Genocide issued on or about April 24, to accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide and to recall the proud history of United States intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide.
Needless to say, the Turks aren’t too happy about this. Their also not too happy about problems they’re having with US ally Iraq. There’s a lot for them to be unhappy with right now. So, in the midst of all that’s going on, Nancy Pelosi has decided she will push forward with this resolution. Now, where it gets really stupid is she is creating a conflict with a strong economic and sometime military ally over something that happened 87 years ago.
Babe Ruth was still playing baseball. Warren G. Harding was elected president. Women voted for the first time in a presidential election. My grandmother was a very young teen. My parents were not even a glimmer in their parents’ eyes.
Eighty-seven years ago.
For that, Pelosi is more than willing to create an enemy who has been a long standing sort-of friend to the US.
It’s only a resolution. The president can’t do anything about it if it passes other than apologize profusely to the leaders of Turkey today who weren’t even born during the Armenian conflict.
This is FUBAR. This is what the people decided was better than what we had before.
This is what happens when people don’t think about what they’re voting for.
I don’t want to hear one more single word about Bush’s wreckless foreign policy.
Not one.
UPDATE October 16, 2007 : After assuring President Bush she had major bi-partisan support and was not withdrawing the resolution, Nancy Pelosi was publicly rebuked by none other than Jack Murtha. Many co-signers of the resolution have now withdrawn their names, and a substantial number of representatives have stated that they will not vote for it. In all likelihood, Pelosi will now let this one die a quiet death. It’s good to know that when faced with an overwhelming avalanche of evidence that her idea is horrible, including generals, ambassadors, Presidents, and a substantial number of her own party clueing her in, Pelosi will finally get the hint after a certain amount of damage has already been done.Kinda makes ya wonder what the world will be like IF a close Democrat ally of Pelosi’s is president and the Democrats have large majorities in both houses.
Congress passed another non-binding resolution condemning human rights violations in Iran. Specifically targeting those protesting labor rights in Iran. This bill passed 418-1. Wanna guess who voted alone against this bill? One clue, he’s done it before. Yup, that’s right. Ron Paul. One other person felt so unmoved by the plight of those poor souls in Iran he just voted “present”. That of course, would be Dennis Kucinich. I just have to wonder, if these guys can’t agree with ANYONE in Congress, what makes them think they can lead Congress effectively as President? Their logic defies me.
In the form of a resolution, Congress took a hard slap at the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Basically, it goes like this. The United Nations formed a council to look into human rights violations and do what it can to assure human rights are respected all over the globe. With the continuing genocide in Africa, the extremist Muslims butchering people in the name of Allah, the extremist Muslims terrorizing the world by attacking innocent people, and basically a whole slew of egregious acts against humanity all over the planet, this is what the United Nations Human Rights Council came up with:
Israel is the only PERMANENT member on their list of violators.
Can you believe that?
I mean, can you seriously believe that?
I really can’t.
I mean, I just really can not fathom what these members of the United Nations Human Rights Council were thinking.
Israel.
Sheez.
Yesterday Iran’s president announced to a live American audience that killing homosexuals isn’t really an issue because there are no homosexuals in Iran.
Yeah, right.
Israel.
Last week the United States caught Iraqi terrorists with Iranian ammunition. Again.
Israel. Right.
Darfur continues to be a human rights travesty as millions are dislocated and starving to death because of Muslem extremists.
Israel. Right.
With such an incredible display of arrogance, bias, and ignorace, the Human Rights Council ceased to be anything of value to mankind. As usual, good idea shot to hell by politics within the United Nations.
The United Nations as a world police force is useless. It just needs to be dissolved and use that money for actual human rights efforts.
What’s even more amazing to me is that when Congress voted on this amazing display of arrogance and bias by the United Nations, two members actually voted against it. They’re both running for President. They are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Needless to say, I don’t think either of these guys have what it takes to be president. Even if they don’t like Israel, what the United Nations did is wrong, wrong, wrong and in no way humanly possible can it be right. Defending that council at this point is stupid. Here’s the context of the resolution:
H. Res. 557 In the House of Representatives, U. S., September 25, 2007. Whereas Article II of Chapter I of the United Nations Charter states that `[t]he Organization is based on the principles of sovereign equality of all its members’;
Whereas the former United Nations Human Rights Commission was widely discredited for its incessant attacks against Israel and for granting membership to Cuba, Zimbabwe, China, Saudi Arabia, and other countries that were notorious human rights violators;
Whereas the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to adopt a resolution establishing the United Nations Human Rights Council, stating that `members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights’;
Whereas the resolution also stated that `the Council shall be responsible for promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner’;
Whereas China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia are members of the United Nations Human Rights Council;
Whereas in the past year that the United Nations Human Rights Council has been in existence, the Council has held four special sessions to address pressing human rights situations;
Whereas of the four special sessions, three sessions were held for purposes of condemning Israel for alleged human right abuses in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and in Lebanon, and the fourth session was a non-condemnatory expression of `concern’ regarding the situation in Darfur, Sudan;
Whereas the United Nations Human Rights Council has failed to condemn serial abusers of human rights throughout the world, including Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, China, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and others;
Whereas, on June 19, 2007, a Department of State spokesperson specifically identified Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Belarus as countries that merit consideration by the United Nations Human Rights Council due to their `serious human rights violations’;
Whereas during its fifth special session, the United Nations Human Rights Council voted to make Israel the only country permanently included on its agenda; and
Whereas United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon stated he was `disappointed at the Council’s decision to single out only one specific regional item, given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world’: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives–
(1) strongly condemns the United Nations Human Rights Council for ignoring severe human rights abuses in other countries, while choosing to unfairly target the State of Israel;
(2) strongly urges the United Nations Human Rights Council to remove Israel from its permanent agenda;
(3) strongly urges the United Nations Human Rights Council to hold special sessions to address other countries in which human rights abuses are being committed, adopt real reform as was intended for the Council when it replaced the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and reaffirm the principle of human dignity consistent with the original intent envisioned at the Council’s establishment;
(4) strongly urges the United States to make every effort in the United Nations General Assembly to ensure that the United Nations Human Rights Council lives up to its mission to protect human rights around the world, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 60/251 establishing the Council; and
(5) strongly urges the United States to work with the United Nations General Assembly to ensure that only countries that have a well-established commitment to protecting human rights are chosen to serve on the Council.
I agree with this resolution 100%. It doesn’t support Israel, it simply states that there are abuses all over the planet and those countries that have at least attempted to respect human rights be allowed to judge those that don’t.
I would REALLY like to know what Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were thinking. I know they both basically like to oppose everything just for the sake of opposing everything, but this is just stupid.
I started a poll a while back, I think it’s still relevant:
24
Sep
Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is disappointed the US is not allowing him to roam free in the US speaking. His logic for allowing to do so is something like this:
At exactly the same time that quote was released, this story is breaking as well:
So, what is the correct information? If Ahmadinejad’s claim that insteability in Iraq is detrimental to Iran’s goals, why are Iranian weapons being found in Iraq?
This guy is bad at manipulation.
Now, what disappoints me without it even happening yet is I know the kids at Columbia won’t hammer Ahmadinejad over real life issues causing death and destruction in Iraq. They’ll buy his rhetoric and probably ask a hand full of watered down social issues that has nothing to do with world peace.
Go ahead Columbia, make my day, prove me wrong.
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.
Every time the G-8 convenes, a bunch of people feel compelled to protest. More often than not they don’t know why, they just know they have to. Like you know when you have to poop, pee, and eat, these people know they have to protest. Case in point about how they don’t even seem to know what they are protesting against:
All I’ve got to go by is the video and pictures of what they are doing. I don’t care enough to research any further. However, it is apparently obvious to me this year they are protesting clowns. Now, that’s all fine and good, and people have the right to protest anything they want, but last I heard, the G-8 supported the rights of all clowns in the world to look clownish any time they chose so long as they didn’t ask the non-clowns of the world to loan them billions of dollars they never intended to pay back.
19
Mar
That’s a pun on The Onion.
I think they know how many people like that idea.
I’m sure Abuminajad ( however you spell that ), probably has that on his mind as well.
That’s why he’s keeping us in Iraq.
Gotta watch that Onion. Those guys are crazy smart.
