Monday - March 21, 2011
let them fight it out and then make friends with the winners
There have been editorials and cartoons showing Obama as indecisive and unsure. Dragging his heels before being led by the hand, by Cameron (PM,UK) into action in Libya.
However, someone wrote that Obama was right not to jump in immediately. Whatever the final truth of it, the fact is that now we will surely have to target Gaddifi personally. In fact, a leading Brit has already said so. The truth actually is ….
this whole exercise wasn’t so much to defend the so called civilians (although that was a consideration) but a move to finally rid us of Gaddifi and his regime.
By the way BMEWS readers. Please take a look at a good map of the region. Tunisia and Libya both on our doorstep here, in a manner of speaking. Neither France or Italy want the refugees already appearing before this past weekend. And the Brits sure don’t want em even if France and the UK are somewhat responsible for making them.
I’m sure that for awhile the tribe (and Libya is a country of those) that comes out on top (which are the folks now called ‘rebels’) will love us for awhile. But you know, not all romances last forever and as the song says ….
THERE’S NOTHIN’ COLD AS ASHES, AFTER THE FIRE IS GONE.
(Hoyt Axton and Tracy Nelson)
Sarkozy and Cameron try to lead Obama
Why can’t we just let the Libyans fight it out (...and then make friends with the winners)By, Peter Hitchens
Politics seems to have become a sort of mental illness. We have no bloody business in Libya, and no idea what we hope to achieve there.
We are daily told that we have no money to spare. We have just scrapped a large part of our Navy.
Our Army is stuck in an Afghan war whose point nobody can explain. And now we have set out on a course that could drag us into a long, gory brawl in North Africa.And yet, when the Prime Minister announces this folly he is praised. Why? Partly it is because we all watch too much TV. Its reports simplify, then exaggerate.
Reporters, much like politicians, like to feel they are helping to make history, and get excited by subjects they knew nothing about until last Wednesday.Before we know where we are, we are taking sides in quarrels we don’t understand. Who are the Libyan rebels? What do they want? Why do we love them so?
The only sensible policy in Libya is to wait and see who wins, and then make friends with them. If you think this heartless, you are of course right. Foreign policy is heartless. Nice countries end up being conquered or going bankrupt. But it may be no more heartless than our kindly interference.I pray that this episode ends quickly and cleanly. Perhaps it will. But we cannot know.
What if our humanitarian bombs and missiles accidentally kill women and children (which is almost certain)? What if air attacks and distant shelling fail to stop Gaddafi’s forces? Will we then send in troops? Who knows? I don’t. The Prime Minister doesn’t.Some of the longest wars in history started with small-scale intervention, for a purpose that looked good and achievable, and ended up ruining millions of lives. The Soviet takeover of Afghanistan in 1979 ended with countless innocents driven into refugee camps, and the collapse of the Soviet state itself. It also left Afghanistan as a worse snake pit than before.
Why are we suddenly so worried about Muammar Gaddafi?
It’s fashionable just now to get very hoity-toity about him. But until recently many of the war enthusiasts were rather keen on him, for supposedly heeding the fate of Saddam and changing his behaviour. Liberal idealists might also consider that Gaddafi is one of the heroes of their hero Nelson Mandela (there is film on YouTube of a touching embrace between these two).There’s no principle at stake here, or we would be bombing Bahrain too, and demanding the withdrawal of the Saudi troops who arrived there in such sinister fashion last Monday. But Bahrain’s the base of the U.S. 5th Fleet, so we won’t be doing that. And as I’ve said here before, this supposed objection to rulers killing their own people is not consistent. Sometimes – as in China, Bahrain and Syria – we’re happy to let them do it.
So why are we rattling the drums of war and fuelling up for a fight in a place where our national interests would be best served by staying out?
If the Arab League members want to intervene, they’ve got plenty of weapons not currently being used to attack Israel. I can only conclude that our Government is historically ignorant, politically dim, immune to good advice and swollen with personal vanity.
Posted by peiper
on 03/21/2011 at 07:05 AM
Filed Under: • Tyrants and Dictators • War-Stories •
• Comments (3)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Sunday - March 20, 2011
Convert to Christianity or Die!
I’m thinking I should just start posting the email correspondence with my old friend in Afghanistan. He works in Army intelligence…
(pause for obligatory Army intelligence jokes… Done? Good. Let’s continue...)
...and sends me stuff he finds. We sometimes get into interesting conversations over the most obscure things. One example is my previous post. He simply sent me something he thought was ‘cute’ and I ‘fisked’ it as Rich K mentioned. The surprise was when my friend agreed with my ‘fisking’…
AH
well put...I had not thought about that tag line in that way. I guess perspective is everything.I have been spoiled, you see. Though it broke the bank, so to speak, my children went to Catholic school until I got over to Germany. There the military requires all uniformed members with children in their schools to work with the teachers, often visiting classes during the duty day. This has led to teachers, heck, the whole system, being a WHOLE lot more accountable. My wife and I have even submitted formal complaints against one teacher a while back and she was fired (several parents banded together and the administration had to bow to our wishes) for incompetence.
So, he sent me another missive, which I proceeded to expound upon. The article he sent is here. My reply:
______,
Seriously, I’m having a hard time picking sides in the Mideast turmoil. Both sides are, as near as I can tell, Islamic. Sunni, or Shiite. Both are not friends of the USA.
Personally? I’d let them bleed each other, then move in and reclaim all of the oil fields and facilities that they ‘nationalized’ back in the 50s and 60s.
Oh, one other thing: if they seriously want our help, they are all required to convert to Christianity.
I’m serious about this. Islam is not a religion. It is a fascist political movement disguised as a religion. Fine. You want to mix religion and politics, I can do that too. No foreign aid unless you convert to Christianity. No humanitarian aid in event of a natural disaster unless you convert to Christianity.
Certainly no military aid unless you convert to Christianity.
Well, that would be a large part of my Mideast policy if I were President.
I’d also not recognize ‘Palestinians’. They don’t exist. There was a WW1-era ‘Palestinian Mandate’ that the British governed. It was broken up in 1948. Israel was one result. Jordan was another. The so-called ‘Palestinians’ are those who a) didn’t want to move to Jordan, b) had their lands occupied as a result of Israeli victories in 1948, 1967, and 1973. Such lands that were NOT ‘Palestinian’, but were either Egyptian, Jordanian, or Syrian. At no time has Israel occupied a Palestinian state. No ‘Palestinian’ state has ever declared war on Israel. Israel never defeated and occupied any ‘Palestinian’ land.
Why? Because no ‘Palestinian’ state has ever existed.
But, wasn’t it it Hermann Goering who said something like ‘a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.’?
_____ replied:
AH
well saidI TOTALLY AGREE: Red on Red is a good thing for us. Who cares how many they massacre? They will do it anyway. I had not thought about the conversion angle, but you know, that has merit. We could use that as leverage. SO...Do you Arabs REALLY want our help? OK, here is the price… We only help Christians. We withdraw all aid to any country (note, I agree, Palastine is NOT a country) that remains muslim. That would weed out our real friends from foes...oh and save us oodles of cash.
What weapons, sure, we will sell items to you, as long as they are not state of the art, and btw, go ahead and slaughter each other some more.
Opinions? What does the BMEWS community think?
Posted by Christopher
on 03/20/2011 at 09:12 AM
Filed Under: • Editorials • Middle-East • Religion •
• Comments (13)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Saturday - March 19, 2011
Thank who?
A couple of days ago I got an email from my high school buddy in Afghanistan:
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
American by birth, Soldier by choice.
Sounds good, doesn’t it?
Then I started thinking about the underlying assumptions…
Here’s my reply: I’ve edited the names so as to protect my friend.
I hate to disagree. If I can read that, I’ll thank my parents. My mom used to sit me on her lap and read to me. By kindergarten I knew the alphabet and most of the phonetic sounds.
If I can read that in English and not German? Well, guess I’ll have to thank Grandpa Burgdorf, a first-generation German who ended up fighting in WWII. Admittedly, in the Pacific theatre. Guess it didn’t take too much time to conceive Mom. He was on Navy leave, Mom was born in ‘43. He wasn’t discharged until VJ Day. Family legend says he didn’t even see his only child until after VJ Day.
The fact that I can’t read it in Spanish? Thank Davy Crockett, Col. Travis, David Bowie, Sam Houston, President James Polk, future President Zachary Taylor, Gen. Winfield Scott…
The fact I can’t read it in French? Thank Gen. James Wolfe in 1759. Brits beat the French.
Hmmm, guess I should thank veterans.
Do I thank teachers? Yes. Do I thank members of the NEA union? NO!
Why?
_____, I married a girl with one child still at home. I had to do major tutoring to get him to graduate high school. I complained constantly to the school administration, and the Dayton Board of Education. I showed the letters from the functionally illiterate English teachers. Then I’d get calls from those teachers in the middle of the night threatening me. Ditto for the social studies teachers. I give the math teachers a pass; I couldn’t find that they were negligent or incompetent. My step-son just needed more ‘instruction’. (It’s in quotes because I still do not believe he couldn’t do it, he just didn’t want to. So he ended up with more instruction and homework from me. For once, his mother backed me.)
My point is that they weren’t teachers, they were incompetent union thugs pulling down a paycheck twice mine, and I didn’t get summers off.
I remember one time me and my wife met with the school superintendent and his staff. The subject was ‘bullies’. Not what I called them, what I called them was far less civil. Basically, there was a small group of ‘students’ whose goal was to disrupt classes. Classes my step-son was in, and having trouble with. He wasn’t their target.
My question: ‘Why are they not expelled for disrupting classes?’
Answer - from school superintendent Franklin––can’t remember if that was his first or last name. All I do remember is that he moved on to be superintendent of Washington DC schools. I’m sure you saw a huge improvement during his tenure in Washington!
Anyway, his answer was: “They have a right to be educated too.”
Translation: We need them to be enrolled so as to collect state and federal funds for the government school system.
Christopher
My point? Thank the parents who care enough. The NEA would have you believe the country would go to hell without them. Funny. The United States got along just fine without any unions, much less a teacher’s union.
Personally, my opinion is this: If you graduate high school, you are qualified to teach your children, or any other children, to high school level. If the teachers’ union objects, (you’re not qualified to teach) then they are providing a lousy product. You should sue the NEA, and individual teachers, for false advertising.
At the very least.
Posted by Christopher
on 03/19/2011 at 09:56 PM
Filed Under: • Education •
• Comments (4)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • EYE CANDY and Good Night
Was a long night turned into a long day and it’s night again.
I’m outta here but leave you with this bit of EYE CANDY.
Candy hell. She’s the whole cake. Love this one but a word about the source.
I only went there to read the political editorials and catch up on my course in nuklur fizziks.
Almost
Posted by peiper
on 03/19/2011 at 04:50 PM
Filed Under: • Miscellaneous •
• Comments (4)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • dueling conservatives? keyboards at the ready? two takes on this newest war
I found the editorial page of today’s Telegraph particularly interesting.
Here are two two arch conservatives, (Simon Heffer – Charles Moore) both very honorable men, both above reproach as to their personal lives. I’ve been reading these two for a very long time.
They do generally fall on the same side of most issues.
Simon Heffer, who I think has referred to the PM as Conservative Lite, is like others, very upset at the cuts made to the military recently. The carrier Ark Royal for example, has been decommissioned and is being scrapped and there is another being mothballed. Forgot it’s name. Cuts across the board in the military.
His reference to the town of Wootton Bassett is telling. It’s where the coffins of Brit soldiers pass through the streets lined with the townspeople paying last respects. It’s very moving and very sad and made worse by muslim scum who tried to march there (I believe they were turned away) but had signs calling the dead, muslim killers and burn in hell etc. Really considerate and merciful folks these members of the ROP.
Heffer is a current editor at the Telegraph.
(PC in this case is Police Constable)
PC Dave can’t police the world
Just five months ago, the Prime Minister chose to shut down much of our defence capacity
By Simon HefferJust five months ago, the Prime Minister chose to shut down much of our defence capacity. He has now decided he wants to act as a world policeman, and help the Libyan rebels before Benghazi is flattened. However, he has absolutely no means of carrying out this intention, except in the most marginal way, or with the help of others, such as the French, who have not made the idiotic decisions about defence that he has.
That, though, is not the end of it. Having persuaded the UN to sanction everything short of an invasion, Dave and his colleagues do not appear to have paused to consider the consequences. If we are going to assist (with our nearly non-existent RAF, and without the aircraft carrier we are just scrapping) in the relief of Benghazi, what about the civilians that YouTube videos show being attacked by the security forces in Bahrain? What about measures that may be taken against civilians by our main ally in the region, Saudi Arabia? Or shall we choose to ignore those?
But, indeed, if we start to feel that outrages perpetrated in other countries compel us not to ignore them, how should we find the means to register a protest against them, since we do not even have the capacity to be of much use in Libya? In short, do we understand what we might be getting into, thanks to Dave’s cavalier determination to pretend he leads a country that still has influence? Do we understand that Wootton Bassett could find itself permanently on parade if we do not get a grip, and think of the realities of our predicament and our place in the world? What if the no-fly zone isn’t enough?
As I wrote last Wednesday, there is one exigency that should compel us to intervene in the Middle East: the threat to our economy and way of life that would be posed by a severe depletion of the supply of oil. Unless that happens we are on the sidelines, our withdrawal from the world signalled by running down our Armed Forces and by deciding, instead, to be a lavishly funded welfare state. However, even if we do have an oil crisis, the defence review has denuded us of the capacity to do anything.
There’s a bit more HERE
The other comment is from Charles Moore, A former editor of The Spectator (1984-90), the Sunday Telegraph (1992-5) and The Daily Telegraph (1995-2003); he resigned from the last post to spend more time writing Margaret Thatcher’s authorised biography, which will be published after her death.
Here’s his take on the subject.
Libya: A good intervention is hard to pull off – but we should still try
Where would the West stand if it let Gaddafi murder his way back to control of Libya?
By Charles MooreWe all want to “protect innocent civilians”, but when Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, said that this was the main purpose of the no-fly resolution on Libya, she was surely mistaken.
These civilians are certainly deserving of sympathy, but they are not passive victims of the elements, like the Japanese people in the tsunami. They have risen up and tried to overthrow their own government. They seem to feel that violence is necessary to do so. Such people normally attract the disapproval of what is ambitiously described as “the international community”.
So in supporting the rebels, the backers of the UN resolution are taking a bold political view. Unless they want a partition of Libya – and the resolution says they don’t – they are trying to bring about regime change. I am glad to say that David Cameron admitted this in the House of Commons yesterday, not quite in so many words, but without embarrassment. True, the resolution is not about regime change. True – and very important – it all has a legal basis. But still, the message is clear: let’s get Gaddafi out, using force if necessary.
For poor President Obama, it is all very difficult. The last American president to bomb Gaddafi was Ronald Reagan.
The last American president to fight for regime change in the Arab world was George W Bush.These men have never been Mr Obama’s role models. He hates the idea of going down their path, so first he delays, and then he pretends he isn’t. As late as this Tuesday, America was resisting involvement. But now at last – thank goodness – he is on board. As the first black president, he may naturally not want to assume what Kipling called “the White Man’s burden” – “the blame of those ye better / The hate of those ye guard”. But if you are President of the United States, you must.
The reason it is right to declare the no-fly zone is that it will bring about the fall of Gaddafi, end the violence and allow the Libyan people to find their own government. This is in their interest, the interest of the wider world, and our national interest. If it weren’t, we shouldn’t do it. It is a moral question but, as Mr Cameron himself explains, a moral question firmly within the context of real politics.
The contradiction of the Obama world-view is that his “look at me” sort of morality has the effect of leaving the nastiest people unmolested. Because he wanted to show that he understood Muslims, he did (and does) nothing to encourage the genuine popular revolt against the oppressive Islamist government of Iran.
Because he is so nervous of being thought imperialist, he wanted to leave Gaddafi alone, even though he also wanted him to go. Mr Obama’s quietist Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, publicly rebuked Mr Cameron for “loose talk” of a no-fly zone less than three weeks ago. Now it is his talk which looks loose.
What changed, then? One element, perhaps, was the case pressed well by Mr Cameron, William Hague, and by the French. The normal role of dawdling Europeans and active Americans was reversed. But a bigger factor was the cover for action given by the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council. If Gaddafi’s neighbours were finally fed up with their region’s noisiest resident, Mr Obama could behave more like a community policeman answering a 999 call than a shoot-to-kill freebooter.
there’s a bit more at the link
Posted by peiper
on 03/19/2011 at 04:26 PM
Filed Under: • Editorials •
• Comments (0)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • So we are going to war with Libya, a former Brit Ambassador speaks out
I found some very interesting and much thought provoking editorials today. Since the USA is now involved (dragged more or less by the hand according to some),
I’m certain those of you in the USA are reading things or seeing things on TV. But I thought you’d also be interested in how this subject is being treated here in the some of the press. Since I can’t tolerate the overly left wing Guardian, I haven’t gone there yet to see what those piss ants are saying.
Anyway ... the following was in the Mail today and this was the POV from the former British Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Syria.
Did the debacle of Iraq teach us nothing?By Sir Andrew Green
So we are going to war with Libya. Make no mistake. That is what is involved.
Gaddafi’s instant ceasefire is nothing but a ploy designed to weaken the international coalition against him. The reality is that we are yet again engaging our armed forces in the complex politics of an Arab and Muslim state.
Have we learnt nothing from Iraq? Nor from the developing chaos in Afghanistan? This time we claim to have the law on our side. Indeed, there was no UN Security.
Council veto from Russia or China but there were five abstentions including, importantly, Germany. This is pretty lukewarm stuff, especially when the going gets difficult, as it surely will.
We also claim to have Arab support but the Arab League resolution was a feeble effort. Both Syria and Algeria voted against the no-fly zone and these are countries which carry considerable weight in Arab affairs.
Meanwhile, it is claimed that Qatar and the UAE might provide some strike aircraft. Useful, perhaps, as window-dressing, but these countries are political pygmies and military midgets. Their air forces are more like flying clubs than serious military assets.
How have we, yet again, got into such a potentially worrying situation? There are surely some simple rules that should be applied before we even start down such a dangerous road as this.
RULE ONE is to know your enemy. Gaddafi is not just an isolated madman. Although he clearly has an unstable personality, he is supported by a whole apparatus of repression that has held down the Libyan people for 42 years.
To talk of these thugs deserting him just because of the imposition of a UN-supported no-fly zone is simply whistling in the wind. His henchmen know that, if Gaddafi goes, they will swing from the nearest lamp-post – if they are lucky.
RULE TWO must be to select your objective and, above all, be honest about it.
Tony Blair was hugely undermined by his claim to be removing weapons of mass destruction from Iraq when, in truth, his objective was regime change.This time round we say that our aim is to protect the Libyan people – presumably only those in the east of the country, as there is little we can do in other parts.
But the reality is that we will not get out of Libya unless we can remove the Gaddafi regime. Last night it appeared that David Cameron and his international allies were acknowledging that. However, it is certainly not authorised by the UN resolution.
RULE THREE must be not to start what you cannot finish. In other words do not enter without an exit strategy.
After eight years in Iraq, the Americans are still not out and the prospects for that country on their eventual departure are, to put it mildly, extremely uncertain.
In Afghanistan, after ten years, we seem to be no nearer a viable state from which we can withdraw with confidence.Despite the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan, we are now engaging ourselves in what amounts to a civil war in Libya in which neither side is likely to have a decisive victory.
Gaddafi should not be able to retake Benghazi once air cover is in place. Equally, the revolutionaries will certainly not be able to take Tripoli and expel Gaddafi by themselves.
The reality is that what we have witnessed in Libya is not the uprising of the forces of freedom and democracy against an evil dictator. It is much more complicated than that.
The Eastern province of Libya, whose capital is Benghazi, was the seat of King Idris, the ruler overthrown by Gaddafi’s coup in 1969.
It is socially, historically and tribally different from the west of the country and has been economically neglected by the regime. The inhabitants have long been disaffected for both political and economic reasons.
Significantly, the uprising took a different course from those in Egypt and Tunisia.
In those two countries the people were able to organise mass demonstrations at very short notice, using the internet to make it difficult to trace individual activists.They succeeded in outnumbering the security forces who were forced to retreat. As a result, the people lost their fear of the secret police. In Libya, that strategy did not work.
The rebels could not achieve a critical mass so the regime had time to reorganise.
Gaddafi also had military units, some mercenary, who were prepared to use live fire against unarmed demonstrators – which the Egyptian army could not bring itself to do.
All this means that we are left with a situation that is messy politically and confused militarily.Our new allies are little more than a rag-bag militia, with little discipline, no command structure and no logistics. With air support they should be able to defend Benghazi but the prospect is for a long stand-off with Gaddafi digging in and staring us out.
What then will be the future of the oil terminals which are largely in the east of the country?Gaddafi seems to have retaken them for the time being but nobody knows whether oil exports can be resumed and, if they are, to whom the money would be paid. As Libya is heavily dependent on imports, these economic factors could become crucial.
Meanwhile, as the situation drags on, developments in neighbouring countries will be of growing importance.
Egypt, whose population of 84million is already greater than that of Germany, will be a key factor but nobody has any idea how things will turn out there. The same applies to Libya’s neighbour to the west, Tunisia.
As for Gaddafi, how will he respond to a prolonged conflict? Will he, as he has threatened, attack Western interests in the air and at sea? Will he turn again to weapons of mass destruction in the knowledge that those who possess them are less likely to be attacked? And how will it all play out in the Arab and Muslim world?
Many will believe Gaddafi’s claims that the West’s intervention is all about it wanting access to Arab oil.
Our response to that argument, that we are concerned about human rights, will be fatally undermined by our failure to protect the Shia in Bahrain, whose peaceful demonstrators have also been victims of vicious repression.
Yet again, the West will be accused of hypocrisy and self-interest. Over time this will be ammunition for Islamic extremists who attribute all the misfortunes of the region to Western conspiracy.
How did we get into this mess? It seems to be that neo-con hawks have succeeded once again in superimposing their enthusiasm for freedom and democracy on hugely complex societies which have no history of freedom and none of the institutions needed for the functioning of a democracy.
These difficulties are simply and naively brushed aside. A wand has been waved and, we are told, the world is a different place.
The Cameron and Sarkozy argument was that we could not stand by and allow Gaddafi to ‘win’. Indeed so, but that is not a sufficient case for direct military involvement.
There was an alternative. This would have been to arrange delivery of a consignment of anti-tank weapons to the rebel groups, which would have rendered Gaddafi’s tanks useless in built-up areas.
Similarly, his helicopter pilots would have steered clear if they found that the rebels had suitable missiles.
Moves like this, if necessary done covertly, would have given the rebels the opportunity to stabilise their defensive position but, crucially, without direct Western military involvement whose implications are now incalculable.
Well I’m sure as heck no expert and have not the makings of a diplomat as I’m too prone to too quickly tell those I really dislike to F***off.
But, now that it’s started and now that we’re going to be engaged as well, don’t you all think perhaps we need to go all out and really get rid of Gadaffi and be done with him? Sure as hell if he remains he’ll do everything he can to restart (as he threatened) support for terrorists. It may now really be in our national interest to get rid of him by any means we can.
Posted by peiper
on 03/19/2011 at 03:56 PM
Filed Under: • Military • Tyrants and Dictators •
• Comments (9)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Missiles Launched
The U.S. Navy fires the first U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles against Libyan leader’s Muammar al-Qaddafi’s air defenses Saturday, a military source tells Fox News.
The U.S. military strikes clear the way for European and other planes to enforce a no-fly zone designed to ground Qaddafi’s air force and cripple his ability to inflict further violence on rebels, U.S. officials said.
Hours after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton attended an international conference in Paris that endorsed military action against Qaddafi, the U.S. was poised to kick off its attacks on Libyan air defense missile and radar sites along the Mediterranean coast to protect no-fly zone pilots from the threat of getting shot down.
“We have every reason to fear that left unchecked, Qaddafi will commit unspeakable atrocities,” Clinton said.
A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss sensitive military operations, said the Obama administration intended to limit its involvement—at least in the initial stages—to helping protect French and other air missions.
French fighter jets fired the first shots at Qaddafi’s troops on Saturday, launching the broadest international military effort since the Iraq war in support of an uprising that had seemed on the verge of defeat. The French military says warplanes have carried out four air strikes, destroying several armored vehicles of pro-Qaddafi forces, according to AFP.
In the hours before the no-fly zone over Libya went into effect, Qaddafi sent warplanes, tanks and troops into Benghazi, the rebel capital and first city to fall to the rebellion that began Feb. 15. Then the government attacks appeared to go silent.
Initial reports say that 110-112 missiles have been fired against Tripoli and Misrata. And that’s just the beginning.
The United States Navy has launched more than 110 Tomahawk missiles in an effort to destroy Muammar Gaddafi’s air defense system. It’s being described by Pentagon officials as the “first phase in a multi-phase operation”. The true thrust of the international military operation has begun.
Shortly after the missile attacks, President Barack Obama informed the American people of the efforts by a “broad coalition.”
“The use of force is not our first choice,” the president said from Brasilia, Brazil. “It is not a choice I make lightly. But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his own people that there will be no mercy.”
I am not happy about this. Is Gaddafi a looney who needs to go? Without question. Is eliminating his air defenses and blasting up his tanks going to make the rebels win? Probably not. Will he be pushed from power by his people? Wait and see. And if he is, then what? And if he isn’t, then what?
Looks like we’re now involved in a 3rd war in the sand lands. Good thing the 1st one is 99% over and the 2nd one is forever stuck in 2nd gear.
I think this is a no-win for the USA. And I would not be at all surprised if the price of crude oil shoots up $25/bbl on Monday.
Posted by Drew458
on 03/19/2011 at 03:46 PM
Filed Under: • Middle-East • Military •
• Comments (4)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • France Over Libya
Brink of war? Are you kidding? Everybody samba!!
French fighters jets soared over Libya on Saturday to counter Moammar Gadhafi’s military forces who were intent on destroying the opposition as they pushed into the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.
“Our air force will oppose any aggression by Colonel Gadhafi against the population of Benghazi,” said French President Nicolas Sarkozy, speaking after an international, top-level meeting in Paris over the Libyan crisis.
“As of now, our aircraft are preventing planes from attacking the town,” he said. “As of now, our aircraft are prepared to intervene against tanks.”
The international show of force is much-welcomed by besieged rebel forces who have called for backup to help them stave off a government offensive against their positions in Benghazi and other rebel-held enclaves.
* French jets have entered Libya’s airspace to prevent Muammar Gaddafi’s forces from attacking Benghazi, President Sarkozy has announced.
* Sarkozy’s statement to the press came after world leaders, including British PM David Cameron, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and various Arab leaders, met in Paris Saturday to hold crunch talks on the crisis in Libya.
* Reports emerged this morning of a fighter plane being shot down over Benghazi. Photos and video show the jet above the city falling through the sky in flames.
* Rebels in Benghazi say the government has been bombing roads and areas around the city. The regime has denied any involvement, saying its air force has remained grounded and the cease-fire is being upheld.
Obama “the leader of the free world”, made a speech yesterday in which he talked tough but essentially told the world “let somebody else do this.”
Asked whether the decision to carry out bombing against Libyan forces could begin immediately after Saturday’s session ends, a senior State Department official said: “In terms of when the bombing starts, I’ll leave that for others to lay out at the appropriate time.”
Such leadership.
Fearless Reader then got on his airplane and began yet another vacation embarked on a vital 5 day trade mission to South America with his family.
Obama departed Washington just hours after endorsing military action against Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi, leaving an array of military might at the ready and raising the prospect that he would have to authorize military action from a foreign land.
For Obama, the visit represents a chance to engage with newly elected [ Brazilian ] President Dilma Rousseff and get a firsthand assessment of what administration officials believe is her practical approach to governance and foreign relations after eight years of the flamboyant Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
...
Obama arrives bearing no major policy gifts. And he’s not likely to deliver on two of Brazil’s top wishes—an endorsement for Brazil to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and a relaxation of tariffs on Brazilian ethanol. The United States and Brazil are the world’s largest ethanol producers.
And after promising question and answer news conferences with these South American leaders, Obama’s first presser was no questions asked. Yeah, because that’s what Rouseff wanted, right.
Obama’s “press conference” with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff was abruptly shrunken down to just statements from each leader and no questions from American and Brazilian reporters, though U.S. officials have been quick to point out that they wanted questions from the media but the Brazilian side blocked it.
Wonderful. Brazil abstained from the Un Security Council No-Fly vote, and has in the recent past been willing to engage in talks with Iran.
PRE-POSTING UPDATE: BATTLE IS JOINED In the time it took me to write this post, it looks like war has broken out in the skies over Libya. I was going to do a sidebar piece about the French flying their new Rafale fighter, which is their slightly smaller, less expensive version of the Eurofighter Typhoon, that has not yet been in any real combat ( a few bombing runs in Afghanistan is all ), but this takes precedence:
Allied Powers Declare Military Action Against Libya
PARIS—Top officials from the United States, Europe and the Arab world have launched immediate military action to protect civilians as Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi’s forces attacked the heart of the country’s rebel uprising.French President Nicolas Sarkozy said after an emergency summit in Paris on Saturday that French warplanes are already targeting Qaddafi’s forces.
The 22 participants in Saturday’s summit “agreed to put in place all the means necessary, in particular military” to make Qaddafi respect a U.N. Security Council resolution Thursday demanding a cease-fire, Sarkozy said.
“Our planes are blocking the air attacks on the city” of Benghazi, he said, without elaborating. French planes have been readying for an attack in recent days.
...
British Prime Minister David Cameron said after the summit: “The time for action has come, it needs to be urgent.”
Obama sambas, while Libya burns.
Posted by Drew458
on 03/19/2011 at 11:00 AM
Filed Under: • FRANCE • Military • Obama, The One • Tyrants and Dictators • United-Nations •
• Comments (0)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Friday - March 18, 2011
Support your local enemy
And around we go, yet again! Bush was wrong about that Axis of Evil stuff - he didn’t have the balls to include China.
Nuclear weapons components seized in Malaysia. Source: China.
KUALA LUMPUR March 17 — Police have seized two containers loaded with equipment parts believed used to make weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear warheads, from a vessel in Port Klang two weeks ago.
The Sun daily reported today that the contraband, comprising dismantled parts listed under controlled or restricted sale by the United Nations Security Council, was found in the containers on board a Malaysian-registered ship bound for the Middle-East.
The free daily said police were tipped off about the illegal shipment when the vessel arrived at Northport from China.
This is the second such incident involving Malaysia, with the first being the Abdul Qadeer Khan network in 2004 where a Sri Lankan national, BSA Tahir, was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for his role in selling parts capable of making nuclear devices.
Diplomats say new Iran weapons materials seized
UNITED NATIONS — South Korea and Singapore have intercepted suspected nuclear and weapons materials bound for Iran that breach UN sanctions imposed on the Islamic republic, diplomats said on Thursday.
The two seizures, made in the past six months but only revealed now, add to a growing list of alleged Iranian attempts to breach an international arms embargo, which are bringing mounting pressure to tighten sanctions, they said.
“South Korea authorities found more than 400 suspicious tubes in a jet cargo at Seoul airport in December,” one diplomat told AFP, giving details from a report to the UN Iran sanctions committee.
The tubes could be used for nuclear facilities, the diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the seizures have not been made public.
“In September, aluminium powder that can be used for rockets was found on a ship in Singapore harbor,” the diplomat added.
In each case the product was destined for Iran.
Hey, remember when Saddam got caught buying aluminum tubes and every leftist and his Uncle Joe was all over Bush, Cheny, and Rice about what utter twats they were because, duh, those were just aluminum tubes?
Over the past year a growing number of cases of weapons and explosives seizures involving Iran have been brought before the UN sanctions committee.
Up to seven tons of RDX high explosive were found on a ship in an Italian port in September that was going from Iran to Syria.
And Nigerian agents seized 13 containers of weapons, including rockets and grenades, in Lagos port in October.
The containers were loaded at the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas and were reportedly destined for separatist rebels in Senegal’s Casamances region. Senegal has since broken diplomatic ties with Tehran.
Britain said this month that arms seized by its special forces in Afghanistan on February 5 were being supplied by Iran to the Taliban militia fighting international forces.
You may not know this, but RDX is bad news. It’s only slightly less potent than it’s first cousins HDX and Octol, which are used to set off nuclear weapons. All of these are explosive nitroamine chemicals, all built around the same 3-D bent nitrogen ring molecular shape. Mix in some powdered aluminum to up the brisance even more, and a bit of paraffin and you’ve got a very stable goo that you can cast and even machine, that has roughly half again as much power of TNT. Hell, add in a little TNT as well and you’ve got H6, the stuff the Air Force puts inside the bombs it drops. TNT is about 60% more powerful than black powder. RDX is seriously potent stuff, slightly more explosive than PETN ( remember the undie-bomber? ) but far more stable.
h/t to Roger the real king of France
Posted by Drew458
on 03/18/2011 at 06:35 PM
Filed Under: • Miscellaneous •
• Comments (4)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • UNITED IN THEIR HATRED …. MUSLIMS.
Very interesting info and more at the link. You should read it.
The ancient loathing between Sunnis and Shi’ites is threatening to tear apart the Muslim world
By John R Bradley
Last updated at 4:14 PM on 18th March 2011The bitter, bloody feud between the two branches of Islam, the Sunnis and the Shi’ites, has gone on for centuries and now this vicious sectarian strife is exploding again in Bahrain, threatening to cause an even greater conflict in the Middle East between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
The implications of the worsening hostility for the world are nightmarish, for the entire region could soon be gripped by turmoil, bloodshed and economic meltdown. What was naively seen a few weeks ago as a fight between freedom and autocracy could descend into an epic clash between two Muslim ideologies, the savagery made all the worse by their long history of enmity.
The roots of the hostility between Sunni and Shia lie not in profound theological differences, but in the political intrigues that took place in the Muslim world in the 7th Century. When the Prophet Mohamed died in AD 632, the question of the succession to his leadership was dominated by family rivalries and disputes.
Essentially, there were four candidates to succeed as ‘caliph’, or leader, and one group in particular, which went on to form the Shi’ites, strongly favoured the claims of Ali, the grandson of Mohamed. Even the name, Shi’ite, derives from ‘party of Ali’. But three times in succession, Ali was passed over as each of the other candidates was chosen before him.
The opposition to Ali deepened the sense of anger among his supporters. Eventually, in this climate of tribal factionalism, Ali became the fourth caliph, though the indignation of his followers was provoked when he was then brutally assassinated.
The tribal feuding in the post-Mohamed era reached its climax at the Battle of Karbala in AD 680. This is really the key moment in the creation of the Shi’ite movement, the point at which the fissure was permanently established.At the battle, Ali’s grandson, Hussein, was killed and, in the aftermath of his death, he came to be regarded by the Shi’ites as a martyr. The split between the Shi’ites and the opposing faction which took on the name Sunni, or ‘tradition’, has existed ever since that battle, causing endless sectarian trouble across the Middle East and the Arab world.The division soon acquired the trappings of theology. In turn, this has worsened the bigotry and hatred.
For example, fundamentalist Sunnis regard the Shi’ites as heretical because they say the worship of Ali and Hussein contradicts the Muslim belief that Mohamed was the last Prophet. However, most Shi’ites would dispute this, arguing that they revere Ali and Hussein, but do not worship them like they do Mohamed
The Sunni belief in the heresy of the Shi’ites leads to repellent prejudice in Saudi Arabia, which has an overwhelmingly Sunni population and where the Shi’ites are widely loathed. Sunnis, for example, often say that you should never accept any food from a Shi’ite because he will spit in it before he hands it over.
Although the two sects live alongside one another, it isn’t an easy coexistence. Shi’ites face outright discrimination.
Partly this hostility stems from the fact that Saudi Sunnis are mainly Wahabbis, a cult which adopts the most literal and narrow brand of Islamic theology. Indeed, according to the most extreme Wahabbi mentality, the act of killing a Shi’ite infidel will improve a Sunni zealot’s chance of entering heaven.
Posted by peiper
on 03/18/2011 at 03:13 PM
Filed Under: • muslims •
• Comments (3)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • making the world safe for democracy
If we get ourselves involved in foreign affairs then at least lets not be hypocrites.
Lets simply tell the world up front and out loud ... we’re gonna do this or that and fuck you if you don’t like it. Or, be diplomatic and state our reason(s) for sticking our nose where it isn’t wanted, and then say fuck you. BUT PLEASE! Lets stop the horseshit about democracy where the word means little or nothing except as an expression. What bothers me about this latest thing with Libya is the BS we’ve been getting about all those poor civilians who are also unarmed. Oh really? Unarmed?
Seems like all folks in turd world places only have to say the word freedom and it automatically puts em on a high moral plain. Like the word “activist” excuses everything.
Well, in the case of Libya, armed people attacked the government. The govt. did what govts do. It hit back. But in this case, we don’t happen to like the shit faced bastard who is head of that govt. and we hear the sirens call. FREEDOM! Democracy! And immediately the Prime Minister of England, whose country has been doing business there for years, gets an itch in his butt and the cure is a no fly zone to protect all those “innocent” civilians. Who would not have been attacked had they not attacked the govt. The French also are very quick off the mark, they want in on this thing too but there’s a catch. The USA was dragging it’s heels. Mr. O. was having second thoughts. Or more likely, no thoughts at all. But he finally caved in because all those innocent and “unarmed” civilians looked like they were gonna lose to Gadaffi, hereafter to be referred to as simply Daffy.
Now, in fact today, we hear from ppl called rebel commanders, that they do have “weapons capabilities that have been kept hidden.” They also claim to possess some tanks and choppers as well as artillery AND .... they claim to have a few “fighter jets” at their disposal.
Reminds me of Texas Guinan.
HELLO SUCKERS!
I think we all agree on one thing. Daffy is a miserable psychopath and nobody except his family might miss him if died today. However, it’s wrong to assume he has no supporters outside the ppl who make money off him. We should have totally done him in after PanAm.
Well we didn’t. Our govt. made him a deal he couldn’t refuse and he accepted. A few months ago he was being welcomed in European capitols with his tents and medals. The whole fuckin world knew the guy was a freak but put up with him anyway. Now ... all of a sudden he’s Hitler? Come on. He’s always been a close copy of the original.
We don’t have any moral obligation anywhere to violate another country’s sovereignty unless our own national interests are at stake. If they are, say so. But forget the moralizing and the guilt. Stop with damn speeches about all those poor and destitute folk yearning to be free. If people feel strongly about the starving in Africa for example, then throw away your money giving to their various charities or do what many have done. Go over there as a volunteer to help or do what moonbat Madonna does. Adopt black children. But don’t insist that the American taxpayer has any obligation to support anyone but ourselves. Which is not the case now. And going to the expense of sending military help to people who’ll more then likely stab Uncle Sam in the back at the first opportunity doesn’t sit well either.
OK, I’m almost done but I want to ask. For those who think we need to be everywhere … Maybe we should attack this guy too? No? Why not? He was voted out of office last year and refuses to leave.
Ivory Coast mortar attack may be crime against humanity, say UN
The UN has condemned a mortar attack on a market that killed at least 25 people and said it could be a crime against humanity.
The UN blamed forces loyal to incumbent president Laurent Gbagbo, whose refusal to cede power has sparked a growing political crisis. They said in a statement that Thursday’s attack sent at least six 81mm mortar shells into an Abidjan neighbourhood. The UN said at least 40 people were wounded.Abidjan, Ivory Coast’s biggest city, has seen daily battles for weeks that have left hundreds dead.
Yeah so? Why should I care? But go ahead. Invade the place cos you can not condemn Daffy if you don’t go after this guy too.
And lets not forget this creep. If we ever got involved in that country, it should be to help what’s left of the legitimate white farmers, who’ve been driven off their lands and been raped and killed by this thug. I don’t believe the things that happen there get as much attention in the American press as it does here. And don’t say they should all leave and go home, because that is, for very many, their home.
Below is dated and comes from 2009, at which time Mugabe ranked as the #1 worst dictator.
Robert Mugabe
ZimbabweAge: 85
In power since: 1980
Last year’s rank: 6Inflation in Zimbabwe is so bad that in January the government released a $50 billion note — enough to buy two loaves of bread. The unemployment rate has risen to more than 85%. In 2008, Mugabe agreed to hold an election, but it became clear that he would accept the result only if he won. His supporters launched attacks on the opposition, killing 163 and torturing or beating 5000. He ultimately signed a power-sharing agreement with opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, but since then Mugabe has broken its terms and installed his own people at the head of every ministry. Meanwhile, health conditions have reached crisis levels. More than 3800 Zimbabweans have died from cholera since August.
Although U.S. leaders have called for Mugabe’s resignation, imports from Zimbabwe (primarily nickel and ferrochromium, both used in stainless steel) rose in 2008.
So how about it folks? And there are lots of others. The world does not run out of them. Why, think of the business we could do selling arms and maybe even hiring out to fight never ending little wars everywhere. Cos as long as there’s bad people running countries all around the globe, there will be excuses to go in and clean their houses for them, even if they don’t ask. All in the name of humanity of course. And as Rich K says, America has a moral right to do anything we want anywhere we want, to subdue bad guy dictators.
Trouble is, in many parts of the world, a dictator might the only stability some folks have.
btw … I’m all for wiping out places like Somalia and Iran. Maybe it’s personal. I still haven’t forgotten Black Hawk Down or our embassy in Iran under that peanut farmer.
Posted by peiper
on 03/18/2011 at 02:51 PM
Filed Under: • Big Brother • Tyrants and Dictators • United-Nations •
• Comments (2)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Halfway Around The World From Japan
This has been going around the blogosphere, but has seen only very limited coverage in the western MSM. Same old, same old. Yawn. It’s another “disaster narrowly avoided” story, just like the Fukushima reactor story that ought to be the lead in the MSM but isn’t. Instead they are indulging in an obscene orgy of fear mongering, but that’s another post.
Hey, can you remember back as far as 4 weeks ago? Remember when it was a news item that Iran was sending a navy ship through the Suez Canal? Guess where they went, and guess what was in the holds of that ship? Yup, you got it in one.
(March 16) The Israel Navy intercepted an estimated 50 tons of weapons from Iran yesterday aboard a cargo ship bound for the Gaza Strip, including sophisticated land-to-sea missiles that could have enabled Palestinian militants to hit ships at Ashdod Port or at sea, or other Israeli targets like a crude oil depot or a gas drilling rig, the navy said.
The weapons were aboard the Liberian-flagged Victoria, which naval commandos took over in the Mediterranean Sea. The shipment is estimated to be as large as that captured by Israel in 2002 aboard the Karine A, which was also headed for the Palestinians.
The Chinese-made C-704 missiles were “undoubtedly strategic weapons” that could have posed a significant threat to Israel’s coastal and marine infrastructure, said the navy’s deputy commander, Brig. Gen. Rani Ben-Yehuda.
He said Iran is known to possess these weapons. The shipment also included instruction manuals in Farsi, and there were other clues that explicitly showed Iranian involvement, said Ben-Yehuda.
The military released a photo of a booklet with the words “technical missile identification document” written in Farsi on the cover. It identified the system as a C-704 Nasr missile, and provided a serial number and date of issue in the Persian calendar.
“This isn’t just smuggling, but a state-supported undertaking whose central goal is to arm the terror organizations around us,” Ben-Yehuda said.
On March 13, Egypt’s military shelled seven vehicles carrying arms, likely Iranian-supplied, from Sudan over the border into Egypt. Several vehicles were destroyed and the weapons – intended for Hamas in Gaza – were seized.
On March 15, Israeli naval commandos seized a German-registered cargo ship, Victoria, in the Mediterranean, 320km off the Israeli coast. The Victoria, with 50 tons of Iranian weapons hidden aboard, had set out from the Syrian port of Latakia, stopped in Turkey, and was headed for Alexandria, Egypt. From there, the weapons were to be smuggled to Hamas in Gaza. According to Israeli officials, Turkey was not involved; the stop at a Turkish port is seen as an Iranian diversionary tactic. Among the weapons were a number of sophisticated radar-guided “C-704” anti-ship missiles made in Iran, based on a Chinese design. ...
On March 16, Turkey forced an Iranian cargo plane en route from Tehran to Syria to land at a Turkish airfield on suspicion it was carrying illicit nuclear material. According to Turkey’s Anatolia news agency, the anti-nuclear, biological and chemical unit of the country’s civil defence department took part in the inspection of the plane, lasting several hours. Following the search, Turkish officials said that no “material contrary to international standards,” had been found and allowed the plane to leave. While Turkey’s foreign ministry downplayed the affair, the assumption is that Turkey, which has recently been drawing closer to Iran in some other respects, would not force an Iranian plane to land unless it had solid intelligence that highly sensitive materiel was aboard.
...
While much of the Middle East, from North Africa to the Gulf Arab states, is undergoing upheavals, it appears that Iran is determined to exploit the situation and exacerbate the instability to its advantage. ... we have every reason to believe Iran will only escalate its efforts to funnel weapons into the hands of its extremist regional partners, including Hamas and Hezbollah, and may possibly be involved in aiding Syria’s undeclared nuclear program.
Good thing that the US has such a staunch president in charge who recognizes our real allies and our real enemies and does not hesitate to make fast and strong decisions and to take action when required in the ongoing fight against fundamentalist islam and terrorism. Hey, I heard that the US voted “present” on the Libya no-fly UN resolution that didn’t even come up for a vote until Gadhaffi had the rebels surrounded and on the ropes in the last city they hold. Yeah, that’s what I call world leadership from our president. Well, when he isn’t playing golf I mean.
Oops, my bad. It was Germany, Russia, China, Brazil, and India that “voted present” by abstaining on the UN Security Council vote. It’s merely that the US has no plan for it’s role in enforcing that no-fly thingy. Or was that the day before yesterday? Now the Hildabeast, our SoS (how appropriate is that acronym?) is talking tough, while France, UK, Canada et al ready planes, ships, and helicopters to go there and actually do something. Crivens, this administration has so many waffles they ought to open their own IHOP.
PS - Sarah Palin called for a no-fly zone WEEKS ago, long before the Arab League did. It’s such a shame that’s she’s so inexperienced and unqualified, isn’t it?
PPS - Secretary of State Clinton’s support of the Libyan rebels and the whole North African situation has left her quite frustrated in light of White House dithering. And to Obama, all she is is a punchline. Seriously.
Clinton is said to be especially peeved with the president’s waffling over how to encourage the kinds of Arab uprisings that have recently toppled regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and in particular his refusal to back a no-fly zone over Libya.
In the past week, former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s former top adviser Anne-Marie Slaughter lashed out at Obama for the same reason. The tension has even spilled over into her dealings with European diplomats, with whom she met early this week. When French president Nicolas Sarkozy urged her to press the White House to take more aggressive action in Libya, Clinton repeatedly replied only, “There are difficulties,” according to Foreign Policy magazine.
“Frankly we are just completely puzzled,” one of the diplomats told Foreign Policy magazine. “We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States.”
Or as the insider described Obama’s foreign policy shop: “It’s amateur night.”
Obama himself made light of her strong feelings for supporting the opposition in a speech last week at the Gridiron Club Dinner, an annual gathering that traditionally features a stand-up comedy act by the president.
“I’ve dispatched Hillary to the Middle East to talk about how these countries can transition to new leaders — though, I’ve got to be honest, she’s gotten a little passionate about the subject,” Obama said to laughter from the audience, “These past few weeks it’s been tough falling asleep with Hillary out there on Pennsylvania Avenue shouting, throwing rocks at the window.”
Posted by Drew458
on 03/18/2011 at 12:12 PM
Filed Under: • Israel • War On Terror •
• Comments (2)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Momma Moonbat
Oh God, how many times have you seen that damn video with the little schoolboy bullying the bigger kid, who finally runs out of patience and body slams the little bastard? It’s everywhere. And what gives me hope about the human race is that, no matter what the hand wringing namby-pamby talking heads on the tube are saying, the whole damn PLANET is saying “good for the big kid, the little d-b had it coming, I would have slammed him again had it been me!” which gives me a small hope that all this PC indoctrination may not be quite so effective after all.
But now the mother of the little twerp is saddling up her high horse and trying to take it for a ride, demanding an apology that her son the bully got his ass handed to him. And the entire world’s reaction is pretty much the same: Go eFf Yourself. Right on baby, right on. Over 1100 comments on this one link alone, and at least 8/10 express that view.
Mother of Bully Body-Slammed in Video Demands Apology From Her Son’s Victim
The mother of an Australian bully who’s become an Internet sensation for being body-slammed on video by one of his victims says she wants an apology.
Footage of the fight shows seventh-grader Ritchard Gale tormenting, shoving and punching 10th-grader Casey Heynes at Chifley College in St. Marys North before the much-larger Heynes body slams Gale and walks away.
But Gale’s mother, Tina, says she and her family are the victims, now that the video has gone viral, and she says Heynes owes her family an apology.
“We don’t need this posted everywhere,” she told Australia’s Seven Network on Wednesday. “I would like him to apologize.”
Tina said she while was “shocked” at Ritchard’s behavior, she didn’t think he deserved to be slammed to the ground. Neither boy suffered serious injuries in the fight.
“Violence is never the answer!”, well true, except when violence is also the question.
Posted by Drew458
on 03/18/2011 at 10:01 AM
Filed Under: • Education •
• Comments (5)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Thursday - March 17, 2011
Do Gun Sales Reflect National Mood?
I’m really starting to wonder if gun sales reflect some aspect of the American mood. Are they a reaction to a sense of safety (lack thereof), trust in the government (lack thereof), or an apocalyptic economic indicator? I don’t know. I do know that the sales figures are off the charts. And they have been ever since Obama got elected. Sure, it was news the first year, but that story has gone by the wayside even though sales this year and last year are just as strong as they were in 2009. Here’s the numbers:
Because some states have taken to running NICS checks as part of their CCW licensing, you have to take the most recent numbers (post 11/08) with a grain of salt. NSSF, the National Shooting Sports Federation, a trade association group that is made up of most of the gun and ammo companies, cuts the latest numbers by about a third. Still, that means just about a million gun sales per month.
The February 2011 NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) figure of 963,746 is an increase of 13.6 percent over the NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 848,036 from February 2010.
For comparison, the unadjusted February 2011 NICS figure of 1,463,138 is an increase of 18.2 percent over the unadjusted NICS figure of 1,237,617 from February 2010.
The adjusted NICS data was derived by NSSF by subtracting out all NICS purpose code permit checks used by several states such as Kentucky, Iowa and Utah for CCW permit application checks as well as checks on active CCW permit databases.
While not a direct correlation to firearms sales, the NSSF-adjusted NICS data provides a more accurate picture of current market conditions.
Adjusted January sales were up 9.7% as well.
Mayor Bloomberg and Schmucky Shumer haven’t been that effective have they?
Perhaps part of it is due to ads like this one, which I find quite disquieting. Ruger has a new scout rifle on the market, and while it ought to be a great little general purpose gun, they’re selling it with the slogan “The one rifle to have if you could only have one”. Dude, it’s not Schaefer beer. It’s a gun. We’re Americans. We can have as many as we frickkin want. Like, a million a month. Don’t even put the ghost of that idea into people’s heads. ( and make a version with a heavier 20” barrel please. It’s just as maneuverable out in the world and gives you an extra 200fps velocity )
Posted by Drew458
on 03/17/2011 at 03:05 PM
Filed Under: • Miscellaneous •
• Comments (8)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Five Most Recent Trackbacks:
Once Again, The One And Only Post
(4 total trackbacks)
Tracked at iHaan.org
Thｅ advantage to having a guide with you is thɑt an expert will haѵe very first hand experience dealing and navigating the river with гegional wildlife. Tһomas, there are great…
On: 07/28/23 10:37
The Brownshirts: Partie Deux; These aare the Muscle We've Been Waiting For
(3 total trackbacks)
Tracked at head to the Momarms site
The Brownshirts: Partie Deux; These aare the Muscle We’ve Been Waiting For
On: 03/14/23 11:20
Vietnam Homecoming
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at 广告专题配音 专业从事中文配音跟外文配音制造，北京名传天下配音公司
专业从事中文配音和外文配音制作，北京名传天下配音公司 北京名传天下专业配音公司成破于2006年12月，是专业从事中 中文配音 文配音跟外文配音的音频制造公司，幻想飞腾配音网领 配音制作 有海内外优良专业配音职员已达500多位，可供给一流的外语配音，长年服务于国内中心级各大媒体、各省市电台电视台，能满意不同客户的各种需要。电话：010-83265555 北京名传天下专业配音公司…
On: 03/20/21 07:00
meaningless marching orders for a thousand travellers ... strife ahead ..
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Casual Blog
[...] RTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPL [...]
On: 07/17/17 04:28
a small explanation
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at yerba mate gourd
Find here top quality how to prepare yerba mate without a gourd that's available in addition at the best price. Get it now!
On: 07/09/17 03:07
DISCLAIMER
THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.
Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:
It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.
- Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
- Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
- Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
- Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere
THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.
Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner
Oh, and here's some kind of visitor flag counter thingy. Hey, all the cool blogs have one, so I should too. The Visitors Online thingy up at the top doesn't count anything, but it looks neat. It had better, since I paid actual money for it.
RSS 2.0 
Atom 
