10
Apr
We have a few international issues going on right now. North Korea basically ignoring everyone and launching yet another missile/rocket, Iran developing nukes/nuclear power, Somalia hosting pirates attacking everyone, Israel and Palestinians going at it, and the ongoing genocides in Africa.
Pretty serious stuff all over the place. Per top respected sources, I have been given an inside look at how the UN ( that’s United Nations ), handles these situations.
You might think I’m joking here, but I’m not. This is truly how I think the UN operates.
H/T: Michelle Malkin
That’s according to Rasmussen:
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of U.S. voters nationwide favor a military response to eliminate North Korea’s missile launching capability. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 15% of voters oppose a military response while 28% are not sure.
Now to me, this is where it gets real fun:
Just three percent (3%) of voters view North Korea as an ally while 46% say it’s an enemy. Surprisingly, the latter number is down 14 points from a survey in mid-February despite North Korea’s belligerent talk before the missile launch.
Forty-four percent (44%) now say North Korea is somewhere between an ally and an enemy, while eight percent (8%) are not sure.
54% of these people don’t know that North Korea has threatened the United States repeatedly in the last decade, arms terrorist groups via rogue governments, and supplies enemies of the United States with arms.
And, it gets even better:
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Republicans consider North Korea an enemy of the United States. That view is shared by 50% of unaffiliateds and 28% of Democrats. Most Democrats (57%) place North Korea somewhere between ally and enemy.
72% of the Democrats responding have absolutely no clue whatsoever what North Korea is doing. North Korea is not somewere between an ally and enemy. They are flat-out an enemy at this time. They are doing what they can do develope missiles to reach the United States. They are doing everything they can to market their military weapons so countries can use them against the United States. There is no grey area here. Somehow, 72% of these Democrats polled either have no clue or don’t care. But, out of that number of people who are so clueless they don’t know who their enemies are, 57% think we should attack them for launching that rocket.
Regardless of the fact North Korea has done it before.
Regardless of the fact it was supposed to be a peaceful launch of a satellite.
Regardless of the fact it posed no threat to the United States.
Regardless of the fact it fell harmlessly into the Pacific Ocean.
Regardless of all that, a huge number of people who do not consider North Korea an enemy were ready to attack them for doing what China, India, France, Russia, and many other countries have done, launch a satellite.
I am going to bet CNN was right a year and a half ago, 43% of expected voters just don’t think national security’s that important. Domestic issues are much more so. If a person truly feels that way, then being totally clueless about what happens in North Korea makes sense and therefore attacking North Korea for launching a satellite makes a lot more sense than attacking Iraq over possible WMD’s did in 2003.
Either way, Obama didn’t attack North Korea. He instead demanded North Korea’s strongest allies, who are most likely supplying North Korea with the supplies to build these rockets, do something about North Korea. They refused.
Given the two options of totally clueless people thinking we should have attacked North Korea for launching a satellite, or, the totally clueless POTUS demanding North Korea’s strongest allies and suppliers spank North Korea, I guess, I have to, go along with the totally clueless POTUS on this one. Only so long as he does not FUBAR our missile defense or military presence near North Korea. When it comes to missiles, the only way Obama is going to get what he wants is to have a state of the art missile defense shield whether Russia likes it or not. Until he has that technology and capability, one more satellite launch by North Korea and they could have the possibility of pointing their rockets directly at Hollywood. Then, expect Iran to have the same capability pointing at Israel. On and on and on it will go as North Korea exports their #1 commodity to any despot willing to pay cash.
The only way you’ll eliminate the arms race is to build a defense system that neutralizes missiles. Wishful thinking and “setting an example” won’t do it.
Attacking North Korea for launching a “satellite” would have been a diplomatic fubar beyond anything Bush ever imagined. Plus, it would have created a political nightmare for Obama who claimed rather adamantly that Iraq was a mistake since they posed no harm to the US.
Besides, there are much more discreet ways of getting your message accross.
The events of this weekend seem almost comical to me. Obama had this volley:
In simpler terms, the assumption is that if the United States destroyed our nuclear weapons, all the other countries of the world would do the same.
To which North Korea immediately responded with:
About 4.5 hours after the rocket’s launch, North Korea announced the satellite was smoothly orbiting the Earth, transmitting data and melodies praising the nation’s late founder Kim Il Sun and his son, current leader Kim Jong Il.
North Korea says it worked perfectly, the rest of the world seems to think it failed completely.
However, North Korea did get some support from their buddies, Iran.
And, the United Nations, that entity Obama thinks should set the rules, was completely unable to generate a response to North Korea doing what they told North Korea they could not do.
Add to all that the fact that Obama is also seeking a space weapons ban, and it just gets even more comical in the context of North Korea so enthusiastically sending stuff into space. I mean, how many people really think North Korea did this so they can play melodies praising a dead dictator? Facebook would have done that a lot cheaper.
So, we got Obama telling the world we’re disarming our nuclear weapons and will not put weapons in space while North Korea is building nukes and sending weapons into space ( or at least trying to real hard to ).
I’d laugh if this weren’t so amazingly dangerous.
My guess, Obama won’t do a thing to our nuclear weapons arsenal and will continue to allow the military to send stuff into space being as no one else wants to go along with his vision of a defenseless Earth.
5
Feb
At least for now.
The problem I have with this concept is we haven’t even figured a way to control nuclear missiles here on Earth. In other words, although the US has been involved with numerous diplomatic treaties for decades, the problem has been with countries that have never involved themselves with those treaties. The United States and Russia decided to scale back their nuclear arsenal, Pakistan, India, North Korea, and now Iran decided to develop theirs. Just this week, Iran launched their first satellite. If Iran is more than willing to ignore international treaties and go rogue in a serious way, why does Obama assume they would honor a space weapons ban?
Reality is, they won’t. And even if we stare them down for the time being here on Earth, someone else will pursue it such as North Korea.
My fear is this ban will only allow our space technology superiority to be eroded even more than it has been. The technology is rapidly becoming available to access space. The private sector is getting there rapidly. What will we do if some terrorist hijacks Virgin Galactic with a nuclear bomb? How will we develop a Near Earth Object defense within the guidelines of a space defense ban? If we just gut the entire concept, what do we do if some rogue entity does violate our self-imposed ban and attacks our communications satellites? Do we just sit around and wait for our communications to be knocked out before we decide to develop something? And, going where no man has gone before, what do we do if there is intelligent life out there that is not so friendly? Would Obama rather have a war on Earth with inferior technology or a war in space where no innocents get hurt? And lastly, what would be defined as military or not? I mean, some satellites carry multiple capabilities. What can be used for purely humanitarian issues such as weather and disaster relief coordination could very easily carry the military function of observing ground based military movements. That folks, is a ton of data. What could be used for private sector cell phone use could just as easily be used for military use. Who would oversee and enforce that information? That’s a massive gray area that would have to be monitored constantly.
As usual, with a very liberal concept, the concept itself sounds great. We don’t war in space or on land. However, the problem is in the detail. As much as Obama doesn’t want war anywhere, many of the approximately six billion people on this planet aren’t quite as peaceful minded as he is. They’ve got ulterior motives that are much bigger than Dr. Evil
And lastly, the space defense industry is huge. The last thing we need to do is gut yet another US dominated industry during a recession. I guess the can spend their time speaking about STD’s instead?
I think this is incredibly naive and borderline stupid. Tell me what you think:
EDIT: As of this date, the ban is no longer mentioned on the White House website. Guess someone got the message through just how stupid this idea was.
27
Aug
Got this via email, I’ve sort of touched on this in the past. No need “Scoping” it, I’ve left off the part that goes over the top:
In the event you’ve missed this – worse forgotten it, a gentle reminder!!
A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality That they imagine that America can suffer defeat Without any inconvenience to themselves.
Pause a moment, reflect back.
These events are actual events from history. They really happened !!!
Do you remember?
1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:
Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40.
2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
Muslim male extremists bet ween the ages of 17 and 40.
4. During the 1980′s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
10. In 1998 , the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the
other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:Muslim male extremists between the of 17 and 40.
12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by — you guessed it–:
Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
No, I really don’t see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?
So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us,
Airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people… Absolutely No Profiling!
They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President’s security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss.
But leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 Alone lest they be guilty of profiling
It then goes on to explain the rise of the Anti-Christ in the book of Revelations.
And then, points out that Barack Obama was raised a Muslim, and is still considered one by his family. That’s going a little too far. The book of Revelations also explains that the anti-Christ will not rise to power through political means. So, the entire point of the email becomes moot because the original intent of the list is being mis-used.
The original intent was pointing out how inane it is for people to be so sensitive to profiling. That part is still true.
And, no matter how politically sensitive some people will act regarding whether or not our government is allowed to do the obvious or not, I can bet you if a group of Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40 get on the same airplane together, a whole bunch of other people will be keeping a very close eye on them. Regardless of political “correctness” ( read stupidity ), a very wise old saying trumps all political issues:
One bitten, twice shy.
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.
You know you’re in a bad way when Google’s context sensitive advertising does this:
Now, ya just gotta wonder why “Ann Coulter” would even come up in an article that never mentions her. More politics by Google? Or, is Ann’s name now so synonomous with “Jew” that Google’s engine just can’t help it?
Honestly, I would not place a bet either way.
Or probably any office for that matter. Check this out:
Hillary got aggravated with the guy. I would have too. He’s an idiot. You don’t have to look very hard on the internet to find a whole slew of people who are quite sure we’re setting the stage to invade Iran. The way you do this of course, according to Randall Rolph, is to declare a segment of the opposing governmnet a terrorist organization and impose economic sanctions against them.
The problem with that is there is nothing in the Constitution that allows that line of thought to occur. Now, what a lot of people tend to ignore for the sake of their politics is that the United States Congress had already approved the use of force against Iraq. We had been in a standing armed conflict with Iraq for a decade. The only thing Bush did was send in troops to directly remove Saddam Hussein. That’s it folks. Bush didn’t do anything that Congress had not already authorized him to do. In the case of Afghanistan, same thing. Congress gave him the authority to use force in retaliation for harboring and abeting the attacks of 9/11/01. He didn’t even impose sanctions in that case. So, for Randal Rolph to totally ignore recent history and the entire legal process that controls what the president can do and twist it for his own political attack on Clinton just makes him look like the idiot of the day to me.
To hammer home his idiocy, which reflects a lot of people who believe in conspiracy theories that they support with their own “research”, Rolph had this to add when Hillary gave him an out by suggesting someone else gave him the question:
“I take exception,” Rolph fired back. “This is my own research. Nobody sent it to me, I am offended that you would suggest that.”
Hillary suggested this because three other people have asked the same question. Hillary just needs to Google “invade Iran” sometime to get the picture that there are a lot of loonies out there that believe this stuff. Of course, with idiots like Keith Olbermann making up these conspiracy theories, idiots like Randall Rolph don’t have to do a lot of “their own research”. Keith gave him the question Hillary. Don’t blame the right wing conspracy for this one.
So, back to why I’ll never run for office, there’s just way too many Randall Rolphs and Keith Olbermanns out there. Hillary’s getting a little flack for her retort. I can guarantee you I would not have been nearly as tactful as Hillary. I would have called him a paranoid idiot who relies on rhetoric to support his fantasy conspiracies.
That probably would not go over too well on CNN or MSNBC.
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:
