Thursday - February 22, 2007

Don’t Look Back

There are days when I wake up and wonder if half the world has gone stark, raving mad. Today is one of those days. I think it was this cartoon that set me off today. All I hear from peaceniks, Liberals, Leftists and their Democratic Party stooges nowadays is “VIETNAM”. They yell “get out now” and “quagmire” and “lessons of Vietnam” and on and on and on, resurrecting the dread ghost of Vietnam Past, rattling its chains of horrendous mistakes and losing effort in a lost cause.

For the education of the illiterate peaceniks out there who seem to be missing several clues, let me make three very important points: (1) the Viet Cong never attacked America or killed American citizens inside our country, (2) the Viet Cong never planned on following us home and bringing the war to our shores and in fact they have left us alone, (3) the Vietnam War was lost, not by the soldiers in the field, but by an extremely vocal segment of the American people back home who, in a fit of pique, destroyed the old Democratic Party in 1968, dropped support for our troops and dishonored them when they came home, consorted with the enemy and finally convinced enough of the “new” Liberal Democrats in Congress to cut off all funding and throw the Vietnamese to the wolves.

Now you may notice first of all that items (1) and (2) do not apply to our present enemy in the War On Terror. They have already killed American citizens here in our midst and they have sworn openly and repeatedly that they will follow us home if we don’t defeat them over there. Unlike the Viet Cong their goal is not to win a country and drive Americans and democracy out. Their goal is to kill “infidels” - everywhere around the world. That would be you and me.

Which brings me to item (3) ... which does seem to apply to our present situation. Once again the same rabble-rousing crowd is clamoring for withdrawal and claiming to support the troops while emboldening the enemy with public demonstrations. Democratic politicians and celebrities are going to Iran, Syria and other countries consorting with people who have publicly announced their intent to drive us out and follow us home.

Finally, the ghost of Vietnam Past is indeed rearing its ugly head in the US Congress as newly empowered Democrats are already sliding down the slippery slope of defunding the war, forcing a withdrawal of our troops prematurely ... and throwing another country to the wolves.

What is obvious here is that the radical elements of our population learned the lesson of Vietnam and are applying the same tactics today to gain the same dishonorable result. My question to you is, “did the rest of us learn anything from Vietnam”? Are we going to sit back quietly like we did before and allow these nihilists and anarchists to pull off the same hideous betrayal that they managed in the early 1970’s?

They haven’t changed their tactics even though the enemy we face is determined to destroy us this time. We need to change our tactics with respect to the internal troublemakers - or else this time we’re going to lose much more than our honor.

_{Mike Lester - The Rome News-Tribune (GA)}

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/22/2007 at 04:35 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Iraq •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Nancy’s Hissy Fit

I have raised two boys. They are both fine men nowadays, having grown up and gone out on their own. It seems like just yesterday though that my afternoon reading or watching the news on TV was being interrupted by one or the other of them pitching what I call a “hissy fit”. That’s a Southern description of a person (usually young) screwing up their face into a horrible grimace, crying great big tears of indignation and screaming at the top of their lungs about some horrific evil that was just done to them - most often by a sibling.

My response to their hissy fits involved three steps: (1) slowly turn my head, make eye contact with the monster midget and give him “the look” (that patient but evil glaring look that only fathers know how to give), (2) if the wailing persisted I gave them “the growl” (that deep-throated Dad voice asking v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y “YOU GOT A PROBLEM?”, (3) if that didn’t quieten the storm I went to DefCon Three (reach out, grab the little brat, pick him up and put on my angry voice, yelling at him “THAT’S IT! I’M TAKING YOU BOTH TO THE ORPHANAGE AND GIVING YOU BACK!").

I rarely had to go all the way to (3) - fear trumps anger all the time. To this day they’re not 100% sure they weren’t adopted and can be traded back in any time. They also know not to pitch a hissy fit - especially around the Old Man.

It’s too bad Nancy Pelosi didn’t have a Dad like me. I don’t care if she is a grandmother nowadays. I’m afraid I’d have to DefCon Three all over her bony ass for this behavior. You can read what Cheney said below - seems to me he was just “tellin’ it like it is.” Little Nancy got her feathers all ruffled and went running to Daddy (Bush) who probably told his secretary to tell Little Nancy he was in a meeting and then ducked into the bathroom to avoid having to listen to a grown woman pitch a hissy fit. Sad, but true.

This childish behavior seems to be a trademark of modern-day Democrats. They pout and cry when they lose elections. They pitch hissy fits if the election was close. They call the adults names and get all indignant when they think someone is picking on them. They scream, wail, moan, cry, whine and just generally make life miserable for the adults (like you and me and Dubya).

Isn’t there some orphanage somewhere that we can return these obnoxious brats too?

Pelosi Calls Bush to Complain of Cheney’s
Comments on Democrats’ Iraq Strategy
_{WASHINGTON (FOX NEWS) - Wednesday, February 21, 2007}

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday phoned President Bush to air her complaints over Vice President Dick Cheney’s comments that the Congressional Democrats’ plan for Iraq would “validate the Al Qaeda strategy.”

Pelosi, who said she could not reach the president, said Cheney’s comments wrongly questioned critics’ patriotism and ignored Bush’s call for openness on Iraq strategy.

“You cannot say as the president of the United States, ‘I welcome disagreement in a time of war,’ and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country,” the speaker said.

The quarrel began in Tokyo, where Cheney used an interview to criticize Pelosi and Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., over their plan to place restrictions on Bush’s request for an additional $93 billion for the Iraq war to make it difficult or impossible to send 21,500 extra troops to Iraq.

“I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy,” the vice president told ABC News. “The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit.”

Pelosi, at a news conference in San Francisco, said Cheney’s criticism of Democrats was “beneath the dignity of the debate we’re engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support.”

“And you know what I’m going to do? I’m going to call the president and tell him I disapprove of what the vice president said,” Pelosi said. “It has no place in our debate.” Bush had previously urged her to call him when a member of his administration stepped over the line by questioning Democrats’ patriotism, she said.

Later, Pelosi said she had tried to reach the president but was only able to get through to White House chief of staff Josh Bolten. Bolten said he was certain no one was questioning her patriotism or commitment to national security, she told reporters.

“I said to him perhaps when he saw what the vice president said he might have another comment,” Pelosi said. White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Cheney “was not questioning anyone’s patriotism.” But she said Bush and Cheney believe that Pelosi and Murtha’s “position to immediately pull out our troops would be harmful to our national security and that it is the wrong strategy to pursue.”

Pelosi said she hopes “the president will repudiate and distance himself from the vice president’s remarks.” In the interview, Cheney also said Britain’s plans to withdraw about 1,600 troops from Iraq — while the United States adds more troops — was a positive step. “I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well,” the vice president said.

In response to that statement, Pelosi said: “If it’s going so well, we’d like to withdraw our troops as well.”

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/22/2007 at 03:51 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Iraq •  
• Comments (10) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - February 21, 2007

Exit Britannia

No one should be surprised that the Brits are starting to pull out of Iraq. Neither should anyone be complaining either. Our friends have done an admirable job in the south of Iraq and from what I can see and hear, they have accomplished their mission and it’s time for them to go home.

To me this is not a bad sign but rather a good sign that progress is being made in Iraq and bodes well for our own future in that benighted country. The Brits took responsibility for the south of Iraq which is almost entirely Shiite so the Brits have not had to contend with the sectarian violence we have seen in Baghdad.

They have lost 136 troops but have managed to get their area under control and turn things over to the Iraqi troops and police - which is what the US hopes to do in the rest of the country - if Congress quits trying to meddle in the conduct of the war. At least the British government hasn’t acted like a bunch of spoiled children, stabbing each other in the back over Iraq and maneuvering for political edge - like the blowhards in Washington have been doing.

No, our British allies have quietly gone about doing their job and now they are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and can prepare to leave. We owe them a big thanks for their efforts and for sticking by us when the rest of the world thumbed their noses at us.

Now, if only the US Congress can put away their surrender flags long enough for US troops to accomplish the same thing, this all might come out OK in the end. We shall see. So far, the surge in Iraq is paying dividends. Significant progress has already been made in quieting the boiling cauldron that is Sunni-Shiite hell that is Baghdad.

To our Brit friends I can only say, “Thanks, Mates!”. We owe ya one ...

Blair to Announce Iraq Withdrawal Plan
_{LONDON (MYWAY NEWS) - Feb 21, 1:00 AM (ET)}

Prime Minister Tony Blair will announce on Wednesday a new timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, with 1,500 to return home in several weeks, British media reported.

Blair will also tell the House of Commons during his regular weekly appearance before it that a total of about 3,000 British soldiers will have left southern Iraq by the end of 2007, if the security there is sufficient, the British Broadcasting Corp. and The Sun newspaper said, quoting government officials who weren’t further identified.

The BBC said Blair was not expected to say when the rest of Britain’s forces would leave Iraq. Currently, Britain has about 7,100 soldiers there.

The announcement comes as President Bush implements an increase of 21,000 more troops for Iraq, but while some of the other coalition partners are pulling out: The Italians and Slovaks have left, and the Danes and the South Koreans want to start withdrawing.

Blair and Bush talked by secure video link Tuesday morning, and Bush views Britain’s troop cutbacks as “a sign of success” in Iraq, said U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

“While the United Kingdom is maintaining a robust force in southern Iraq, we’re pleased that conditions in Basra have improved sufficiently that they are able to transition more control to the Iraqis,” Johndroe said in Washington.

Britain has long been the most important coalition member in Iraq after the United States. But Blair knows the British public and politicians from his own Labour Party want the troops out as quickly as possible, and don’t want to see Britain stick with the United States in Iraq for the long haul.

Militarily, a British withdrawal isn’t likely to have much effect on the stepped-up U.S. operation in Baghdad or the war with the Sunnis in Anbar province west of the Iraqi capital. However, Iraqi forces could have a tough time maintaining security in mostly Shiite southern Iraq, including Basra city.

Blair’s Downing Street office refused to comment on the report, which also said Blair would tell the Commons that if the situation worsens on the ground on Iraq, his new game plan could change.

A British government official confirmed that Blair would make a statement to the Commons on Wednesday on the status of British forces in Iraq. The official spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter.

Johndroe said that “the United States shares the same goal of turning responsibility over to the Iraqi Security Forces and reducing the number of American troops in Iraq. ... President Bush sees this as a sign of success and what is possible for us once we help the Iraqis deal with the sectarian violence in Baghdad.”

“We want to bring our troops homes as well,” Johndroe said. “It’s the model we want to emulate, to turn over more responsibilities to Iraqis and bring our troops home. That’s the goal and always has been.”

At a news conference in Brussels on Jan. 15, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he was not bothered that Britain was “planning a drawdown at some point this year in their forces in the south.”

He said Basra’s security situation was much different than Baghdad’s.

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/21/2007 at 02:10 AM   
Filed Under: • Iraq •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - February 19, 2007

Islam Divided

Every once in a while I run across an editorial that really deserves to be shared, if for no other reason than the educational value it provides. This is one of those and deserves your time in order to better understand the mess we have gotten ourselves dragged into in the Middle East.

Let me make clear to all the BDS sufferers and liberal conspiracy theorists out there that the current administration didn’t drag us into this. That was done by Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Without a doubt, President Bush would probably have been much happier finishing the reading of “My Pet Goat” on 9/11. If you think otherwise, you really need to get a grip.

No, put aside for a minute how we got here and let’s examine what we’re caught in the middle of. Ralph Peters of Real Clear Politics does an excellent job of explaining the complexities of Islam that should serve to enlighten all of us as to the nature of our enemies - and our friends. What Mr. Peters describes below is the schism between the Sunni and Shi’a branches of Islam and the motivations of each in the current conflict.

I want you to read this because Iraq is a microcosm of this division, trapped between the Sunni nations to the West and South and the major Shi’a nation to the East. What is playing out in Iraq now really has nothing to do with us. It’s about them vs. them. Our troops are just trying to keep the noise down and so far we haven’t been doing a very good job of it.

To understand why we have failed so far, we need to understand the deep rift between the two sects struggling for control of Iraq and we also need to acknowledge what worked in the past. This editorial below will serve to give you a better understanding of the two opposing sides in Iraq. As for what worked in the past, all we need to do is look at Saddam Hussein.

Hussein used every trick in the book to control the two groups. Being Sunni, he and his followers brutally oppressed the Shi’a (and the Kurds). He gassed his own people, tortured and slaughtered hundreds of thousands in frequent purges. When that failed, he distracted the internal factions by waging wars with Iran and occupying Kuwait.

Can we use the same tactics to control the factions in Iraq? Of course not. So what do we do? The Democrats here in the US seem to think the best thing to do is throw up our hands, bail out and let them slaughter each other in the bloodbath that surely would follow our withdrawal. I don’t believe that is a viable option either, if for no other reason than the fact that we would suffer incredible damage in the eyes of the world and be seen as impotent and vacillating.

So how do we keep the peace between two factions who have hated each other for over a thousand years? Do we divide the country, as some have suggested? Maybe. The borders in the Middle East are a complete fabrication anyway, arbitrarily drawn up by the British and French after WWI. Perhaps a federal system with three semi-independent “states” for Sunni, Shi’a and Kurds?

That would be my solution. Let them build walls and fences if they want - just keep them apart ... but keep a central government to share oil money equally between the three and deal with the outside world. Let each “state” have their own “national guard” and a “governor” to manage each.

It’s obvious that our current plan to enforce democratic solidarity on these people is going nowhere. Maybe it’s time to let natural forces prevail and divide the country up and everybody go to their own “state” in a manner similar to the division of the Indian subcontinent after WWII.

The worst option would be to let the surrounding countries take bites out of Iraq, with Iran annexing the Shi’a region in the south, Saudi Arabia or Syria annexing the central Sunni region and Turkey annexing the northern Kurdish region. Iraq, as a nation, would effectively disappear.

No matter which option we choose, the decision we make will impact the region for decades to come - for better or worse. Regardless, the administration and Congress needs to look at all the alternatives, decide on a course and stick with it. No more of this partisan bickering and jockeying for position in the next election.

We need statesman who understand the problem and are willing to put aside our internal political divisions and work on a solution that allows us to get out without leaving chaos and murder behind. That is the real lesson we should have taken from Vietnam. We do not want our leaders to once again throw a region to the wolves and watch millions die after we leave. Let’s do the right thing this time ... before time runs out ...

Sunni vs. Shi’a: It’s Not All Islam
-- By Ralph Peters
_{(FOX NEWS) - Sunday , February 18, 2007}

Among the worst members of the it’s-all-a-conspiracy pack are those who insist that every Muslim is in on a vast Jihadi conspiracy to make Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks wear a chador (not a bad idea, aesthetically speaking).

But those most anxious to condemn Islam in its entirety skip over annoying facts: Overwhelmingly, the victims of Islamist terror have been other Muslims; even the Taliban or the Khomeinist regime never rivaled the Inquistion’s ferocity; and Europeans, not Muslims, long have been the heavyweight champions of genocide. All monotheist religions have been really good haters. We just take turns.

But the biggest obstacle to establishing the Caliphate in California is that Shi’a “Islam” never bought into the Caliphate at all. At bottom, it’s a different religion from Sunni Islam. They’re not just different branches of a faith, as with Protestantism and Catholicism, but separate faiths whose core differences are more-pronounced than those between Christians and Jews.

Technically, Sunni militants are correct when they label the Shi’a “heretics.” Persians and their closest neighbors, with long memories of great civilizations, were never comfortable with the crudeness of Arabian Islam, which the anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss aptly called “a barracks religion.”

The struggle has never ended between the ascetic, intolerant Bedouin faith of Arabia, with its fascist obsession on behavior, and the profound theologies of Persian civilization that absorbed and transformed Islam. While Shi’ism only prevailed in Persia within the last millennium (nudging out Sunni Islam at last), “Aryan” Islam had long been shaped by Zoroastrianism and other ineradicable pre-Islamic legacies.

Persians made the new faith their own, incorporating cherished traditions — just as northern Europeans made Christianity their own through Protestantism. It’s illuminating to hear Iran’s president rumor the return of the Twelfth Imam, since the coming of that messiah figure is pure Zoroastrianism with no connection to the Koran or the Hadiths.

Even the rhetoric of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, condemning the United States as the “Great Satan” divided the world into forces of light and darkness — Zoroaster again, as well as Mani, the dualist whose followers we know as “Manicheans.” Iranians excitedly deny such pre-Islamic influences — then worship at the ancient shrines of re-invented saints, celebrate the Zoroastrian New Year, and incorporate fire rites into social events.

The Prophet’s attempt to discipline Arabian hillbillies produced a faith ill-fitted to Persia’s complex civilization — or to Mesopotamian Arabs, who despised the illiterate desert nomads. Islam was bound to change as it occupied this haunted real estate.

What we’ve gotten ourselves involved in today is an old and endless struggle between the desert and the city, between civilization and barbarism. Long oppression may have made Shi’ism appear backward, but it’s inherently a richer faith than Sunni Islam. With its End-of-Times vision, founding martyrs and radiant angels, its mysticism and wariness of the flesh, Shi’ism is closer to Christianity than check-list Sunni Islam ever could be.

Further confounding the strategic situation, there are other, parallel struggles within Shi’ism and Sunni Islam. Over the centuries, both faiths developed sophisticated urban classes that are now under assault, as they periodically have been, by intolerant simplifiers preaching the reform-school Islam of seventh-century Arabia.

Simultaneously, there’s been some bizarre cross-fertilization: Usama bin Laden, a Sunni who hates the Shi’a more fiercely than he does Americans, has grafted a Shi’a End-Of-Days vision onto Sunni Islam. Meanwhile, the mullahs who locked down Iran obsess about behavior — a Sunni approach to faith — at the expense of Shi’ism’s tradition of inner luminosity (in the Sunni world, the persecuted Sufis were the mystics).

We’re a fringe player in multiple zero-sum struggles: Persian Zoroastrianism in Muslim garb vs. Bedouin fascism; multiple insurgencies within the Sunni global campaign to re-establish the Caliphate; an interfaith competition to jump-start an apocalypse; an old ethnic struggle between Persians and Arabs; and a distinctly Zoroastrian struggle between good and evil (alert the White House).

Many will reflexively reject this interpretation of Shi’ism and Sunni Islam as two separate faiths with profoundly different inheritances. Blog Bedouins and “scholars” alike will feel threatened. That’s part of our problem: We’re often as close-minded as our enemies. The greatest power in history thinks small.

As I remarked to an Arab-American friend last week, faiths are like bad neighbors — they borrow a great deal, then deny it. There is no such thing as a pure faith today. All have been influenced by their predecessors and peers, by internal evolutions and their historical environments. But even individuals who reject such a view when it comes to their own faith do themselves no favors by refusing to contemplate Islam’s complexity.

What does all this mean to us? First, wherever there are irreconcilable differences, there are strategic opportunities. Second, our insistence on seeing the Middle East through the eyes of yesteryear’s failed statesmen has been disastrous — we need to reinterpret the Muslim world.

Third, we’ve entered a new age when all the great faiths are struggling over their identities. As the religions most-immediately besieged, Shi’ism and Sunni Islam are the noisiest and, for now, the most-violent. But all faiths are in crisis — even as every major faith undergoes a powerful renewal.

In my years as an intelligence analyst, I consistently made my best calls when I trusted my instincts, and I was less likely to get it right when I heeded the arguments around me. Today, those surrounding arguments damn Iran.

My instincts tell me our long-term problem is with Arab Sunnis, whose global aspirations have veered into madness. We have a problem with the junta currently ruling Iran, but not with Persian civilization. Meanwhile, the Bedouin fanaticism gripping so much of the Middle East has no civilization.

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/19/2007 at 05:10 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Iraq • RoPMA •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(1)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - February 18, 2007

Senate Slime And Media Morons

All the NY TIMES can see in this story is the defection of seven RINO’s. Their sister Liberal publication The Washington Post saw the same thing (“Iraq Vote In Senate Blocked By GOP”). Both seem obsessed with the phrase “blocked by the GOP” and insist on calling it a “debate on Iraq”. They make it out to be an effort by Republicans to avoid debating the war.

Now, what’s wrong with that picture, other than the fact that it shows a one-sided, biased agenda? Where was this Liberal media when the Bush Administration tried to work out a bill to reform Social Security in the face of shortfalls in the near future or a bill to give tax breaks that would help provide health care coverage for more Americans? You know where they were. They were dead set against both proposals - even though both are Liberal “causes”.

Why? Because it was Bush’s ideas not theirs. So those measures effectively died due to obstruction by Democrats and the Liberal media. Did they call it obstruction? Of course not. They just buried it and hurried along to find something else to hogtie the administration. Now, their obstructionism has come back to haunt them and they’re crying “foul” ... and we sit back and let them get away with it?

As for the seven RINO’s who jumped the fence and kissed up to the Democrats in this blatant attempt to usurp the power of the Executive Branch of our government, their day will come - in 2008. The fact is the House has already sent the wrong message overseas and to our troops in the current fight against Islamofascists who would kill us. There weren’t enough votes in the House to stop the Democrats from making asses of themselves. The Senate is another matter. All I can say is that we can be thankful there were 34 Senators who decided that micromanaging the war from the sidelines and raising the morale of Al-Qaeda was a bad idea.

(For the record, 9 Republicans and 1 Democrat failed to show up to vote on this bullshit resolution. No-shows included Republicans McCain, Kyl, Murkowski, Cochran, Bond, Corker, Bennett, Hatch, Ensign and Democrat Johnson.)

Senate Rejects Renewed Effort to Debate Iraq
_{WASHINGTON (NY TIMES) - February 18, 2007}

The Senate on Saturday narrowly rejected an effort to force debate on a resolution opposing President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq, but Republican defections emboldened Democrats to promise new attempts to influence the administration’s war policy.

The 56-to-34 vote in a rare Saturday session was the second time Republicans were able to deny opponents of the troop increase a debate on a resolution challenging Mr. Bush, and it came just a day after the House formally opposed his plan to increase the military presence in Iraq.

But the outcome, four votes short of the 60 needed to break a procedural stalemate, suggested that Democrats were slowly drawing support from Senate Republicans for what was shaping up to be a drawn-out fight between the Democrat-controlled Congress and Mr. Bush over his execution of the war.

Seven Republicans split from their party and joined 48 Democrats and one Independent in calling for a debate — five more Republicans than during a similar showdown earlier this month. All but two of the seven face re-election next year.

The Republicans who broke ranks were Senators John W. Warner of Virginia, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, and Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine.

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/18/2007 at 11:20 AM   
Filed Under: • Iraq • Media-Bias • Politics •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - February 16, 2007

Postcard From Iraq

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

-- Edmund Burke --

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/16/2007 at 05:32 PM   
Filed Under: • Iraq •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - February 07, 2007

Hubris

Every time I hear some reporter or politician here in the US use the phrase “sole remaining superpower”, I want to cringe and I usually have an urge to quickly glance over my shoulder as the hairs on the back of my neck stand up as if expecting some dread evil. Why? Because the prevailing wisdom of 6,000 years of civilization goes like this ... “pride goeth before the fall.”

This is what is known as “hubris”, which is defined as “excessive pride displayed by a character and often taking the form of a boastful comparison of the self to the divine, the gods, or other higher powers - often also resulting in harsh punishment.” It’s that last part that bothers the heck out of me.

I’m reminded of Teddy Roosevelt who didn’t say, “boast loudly and carry a big stick”. No, he said, ”walk softly and carry a big stick.” Leave a light footprint, don’t disturb the other animals but keep the elephant gun handy. That was our Teddy. If he could hear all the boasting about the “world’s only remaining superpower” or the “most powerful military the world has ever seen” he would probably tell us to STFU and keep the noise down - the natives might get restless.

Yes, it is a fact that in terms of actual firepower, technology, manpower and amount of GDP spent on the military there is the United States at #1 and the next 25 countries combined are at #2. A far distant #2 ... but do we need to brag about it? Constantly?

You don’t see our fine troops in the field doing this. They don’t ride through the streets of Baghdad shouting about how good they are or how powerful their tanks are. They know they don’t need to - plus they’ve got a whole hell of a lot more common sense than the reporters and politicians back home. Even worse are the anti-war pacifists who seem to have bought into the whole “we’re a superpower, so nothing can hurt us - therefore we need to leave everyone else alone lest we offend them by making them feel inferior” argument.

That’s really the basis of the whole “human shields - to protect the little people overseas from the US bullies” and the “don’t strike back when we’re attacked - instead we need to try to understand why the little people are so afraid of us” and the “we need to put our massive strength under United Nations control to protect the world full of little people from us.”

And it’s not the anti-war Leftists here in America who have bought into this bulls**t but also several countries overseas. France, which has had a bad case of penis envy since Napolean went down in flames, heads this group of whining weasels. Small countries, full of “little people” in the Third World also are convinced that they face a supreme bully - even if we ignore them and most Americans coudln’t find them on a world map if we tried.

Why? It’s because some people here in the US feel the need to brag and strut across the world stage, scaring the bejeezus out of everyone. And no, I’m not talking about Iraq so don’t bother to use that as an example. The US (and the UN) waited twelve years for Saddam Hussein to disarm and the UN issued a baker’s dozen of resolutions asking him to stop being an asshole. Even when the UN and the US Congress approved action, President Bush gave Hussein a last chance to step down and avoid any bloodshed. He refused. Now he’s six feet under, his armed forces defeated in just a few weeks.

That’s where the “sole remaining superpower” freaks should have begun to notice that we do indeed have the most powerful military on the planet (and probably in the entire solar system, come to think of it) but what everyone failed to remember is that we also have the absolute worst foreign police force ever seen in all of recorded human history.

How can we call ourselves a “superpower” if we can’t police those we’ve whupped? We can’t because even after 250 years we are still incredibly naive when dealing with foreign peoples. Sooner or later we’re going to have to face up to the fact that we can beat the crap out of anyone on the planet but we are wholly incapable of keeping them down or even keeping them quiet. So let’s drop the “superpower” crap, stop trying to police the world and keep the big stick handy behind our back and out of sight. Take a look at the table below and you might realize why we aren’t the 600 lb gorilla we think we are. The Russians haven’t gone away. In fact, they’re re-arming and building more nukes.

Here’s a thought: what if we had invaded Iraq (with United Nations consent and approval) and had just gone in, defeated Saddam’s army, rounded him up, flew him back to New York and placed him on trial by a United Nations tribunal - and - withdrew all troops at that time and told the UN to get together their own “police force” to clean up the mess and stabilize the country? Perhaps France, Germany, Russia, Saudi Arabia and all the other “Monday morning quarterbacks” could have jumped in and proven to us that they too can be “super” if they’d only try. Maybe next time ... ?

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/07/2007 at 12:39 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Iraq •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - February 06, 2007

Sniffin’ Them Out

_{Dana Summers - The Orlando Sentinel}

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/06/2007 at 09:52 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Iraq •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Gridlock

Yesterday, the US Senate spent the entire day doing absolutely nothing.

Well, that’s not entirely correct. They argued back and forth all day over a non-binding resolution to voice disapproval of President Bush and the war in Iraq. The resolution would have no effect on anything and was purely intended by Democrats to poke the President in the eye.

So a meaningless proposal went down to defeat by a score of 49-47, with Republicans voting in a bloc against it (with two exceptions, Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Olympia Snow of Maine who sided with Democrats) and a few votes from the other side of the aisle standing with Republicans, like Joe Lieberman. They needed 60 votes to shove this useless piece of crap down the President’s throat. Didn’t get it.

No, most of the day was spent arguing on the floor and several Senators engaged in outright demigogery, pounding their chests and pointing their little fingers and waffling back and forth - and that was just the ridiculous show for the C-SPAN cameras. The really nasty stuff went on in back room wrangling, arm-twisting and everything short of outright blackmail and we’re not too sure of that.

This is what happens when Congress tries to run a war. I call it the Platypus Initiative, named after the most unusual animal on Earth with body parts from several animals and absolutely useless in the overall scheme of things. If the Senate continues meddling in the business of conducting war we will end up with a platypus for a solution.

And don’t even get me started on the dozens and dozens of 2008 Presidential candidates in the Senate who spent the day blowing with the wind and trying desperately to appear decisive while deciding nothing and whose ambitions teetered in the balance before the cameras.

So what was the product of yesterday’s guerilla warfare on the Senate floor? ... Absolutely nothing. Which is a good thing. Gridlock means they’re too busy to meddle in the affairs of you and me. Unfortunately it won’t stay that way. President Bush submitted the 2008 budget yesterday and it had to wait while the posturing poseurs piddled away. Now they are free to go after the budget and that means me and thee are in dire trouble. Just one word comes to mind ... taxes ...

G.O.P. Senators Block Debate on Iraq Policy
_{(NY TIMES) - February 6, 2007}

Republicans on Monday blocked Senate debate on a bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq, leaving in doubt whether the Senate would render a judgment on what lawmakers of both parties described as the paramount issue of the day.

The decision short-circuited what had been building as the first major Congressional challenge to President Bush over his handling of the war since Democrats took control of Congress last month, and left each party blaming the other for frustrating debate on a topic that is likely to influence the 2008 presidential and Congressional races.

At issue is a compromise resolution drawn up chiefly by Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, that says the Senate disagrees with President Bush’s plan to build up troops and calls for American forces to be kept out of sectarian violence in Iraq.

The deadlock came after Democrats refused a proposal by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, that would have cleared the way for a floor fight on the Warner resolution in return for votes on two competing Republican alternatives that were more supportive of the president.

One of those alternatives, by Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, would declare that Congress should not cut off any funds for forces in the field. That vote was seen as problematic for Democrats because many of them opposed any move to curtail spending, raising the prospect that it could have attracted the broadest support in the Senate.

The procedural vote, which divided mostly along party lines, left the Democratic leadership 11 votes short of the 60 needed to begin debate on the bipartisan resolution. Forty-seven Democrats and two Republicans voted to open debate on the resolution; 45 Republicans and one independent were opposed.

The Republicans run a risk with their resistance in the event Democrats are able to persuade the public that Mr. Bush’s allies are stonewalling in the Senate and shielding the president from criticism over an unpopular war. But their show of unity, with war critics including Mr. Warner of Virginia and Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, siding with the leadership, lent some credibility to Republican claims that Democrats were being unfair. “I am confident that somehow this matter will be worked out,” Mr. Warner said.

But Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said that “time was tenuous” and that he would not guarantee that Democrats would try again to bring up the resolution. He did promise that there would be more clashes over Iraq policy as the Senate turned to measures like the president’s request for $100 billion in emergency Iraq spending. “You can run but you can’t hide,” Mr. Reid told his Republican colleagues on the floor. “We are going to debate Iraq.”

- More ...

More Coverage:

The Washington Post: “GOP Stalls Debate On Troop Increase”

FOX NEWS: “Senate Fails to End Debate on Iraq Resolution”

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/06/2007 at 08:33 AM   
Filed Under: • Iraq • Politics •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - January 30, 2007

FUBAR

_{Bruce Plante - Chattanooga Times Free Press}

Posted by The Skipper     on 01/30/2007 at 02:56 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Iraq • Military •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Changing Times

In Washington, counter-protesters also converged on the mall in smaller numbers, but the antiwar demonstration was largely peaceful.

There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq.

Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration’s policies in Iraq.

Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.

Capitol police made the antiwar protesters walk farther away from the counter-protesters. “These are not Americans as far as I’m concerned,” Mr. Sparling said.

Another counter-protester, Larry Stark, 71, a retired Navy officer who fought in Vietnam for five years and was a prisoner of war, said, “We never lost a battle in Vietnam but we lost the war, and the same is going to be true in Iraq if these protesters have their way.”

The protesters on Saturday were undermining troop morale, Mr. Stark said, and increasing the likelihood of a premature withdrawal. “It’s like we never learn from the past,” he said.

-- NY TIMES, January 29, 2007 “Protest Focuses on Iraq Troop Increase”

Posted by The Skipper     on 01/30/2007 at 01:52 AM   
Filed Under: • Iraq •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - January 29, 2007

Smackdown in Najaf

News Item #1: Iraqi and US forces smacked the crap out of insurgents in Najaf, killing hundreds. News Item #2: The NY Times reported it. I don’t know which is more earth-shattering. The first is good news. The second is nothing short of a miracle.

I look forward to seeing more headlines like this in the next few months. Sooner or later these creeps (the ones in Iraq, not the ones at the TIMES) will run out of warm bodies and we can bring our troops home and buy them all a beer or three (or more).

250 Are Killed in Major Iraq Battle
_{BAGHDAD (NY TIMES) — January 29, 2007}

At least 250 militants were killed and an American helicopter was shot down in violent clashes near the southern city of Najaf on Sunday, Iraqi officials said. Iraqi security forces talked to a wounded man in Zarqa after clashes broke out between Iraqi forces and gunmen there.

For 15 hours, Iraqi forces backed by American helicopters and tanks battled hundreds of gunmen hiding in a date palm orchard near the village of Zarqaa, about 120 miles south of Baghdad, by a river and a large grain silo that is surrounded by orchards, the officials said.

It appeared to be one of the deadliest battles in Iraq since the American-led invasion four years ago, and was the first major fight for Iraqi forces in Najaf Province since they took over control of security there from the Americans in December.

That handover was trumpeted by the Iraqi government at the time as a sign of its progress in regaining more control of Iraqi territory. The American military confirmed that the helicopter crashed around 1:30 p.m., and said that two soldiers aboard died in the crash. But American military officials said they could not confirm the total number of dead in the battle.

Col. Ali Numaas, a spokesman for the Iraqi security forces in Najaf, and an Interior Ministry official said the number of dead could rise. They said that the fighting stopped just after 10 p.m. and that most of those killed were militants. An employee at a local morgue said at least two Iraqi policemen were among the dead.

In a statement, the United States military said bodies of the two soldiers aboard the helicopter were recovered. The crash, at least the third involving an American helicopter in Iraq over the past week, is under investigation. The precise affiliation of the militants was unclear.

Asad Abu Ghalal, the governor of Najaf Province, said the fighters in the orchard were Iraqi and foreign, some wearing the brown, white and maroon regalia of Pakistani and Afghan fighters. He said they had come to assassinate Shiite clerics and attack religious convoys that were gathering in Najaf, one of Shiite Islam’s holiest cities, and other southern cities for Ashura, a Shiite holiday that starts Monday night.

At a news conference on Sunday afternoon, Mr. Ghalal said the fighters called themselves the Soldiers of Heaven, and seemed to be part of a wider Sunni effort to disrupt Ashura, which marks the seventh-century death of the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson Hussein.

The holiday attracts hundreds of thousands of Shiite pilgrims to Karbala, where Hussein is believed to have been killed, and for days, the roads of southern Iraq have been filled with convoys of pilgrims beating drums and preparing for the day’s rituals, which include self-flagellation. In past years, Ashura has been a magnet for violent attacks from Sunnis, with at least 180 people killed on the holiday three years ago.

But two senior Shiite clerics said the gunmen were part of a Shiite splinter group that Saddam Hussein helped build in the 1990s to compete with followers of the venerated Shiite religious leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. They said the group, calling itself the Mehwadiya, was loyal to Ahmad bin al-Hassan al-Basri, an Iraqi cleric who had a falling out with Muhammad Bakr al-Sadr — father-in-law of the Shiite leader Moktada al-Sadr — in Hawza, a revered Shiite seminary in Najaf.

The clerics spoke on condition of anonymity because they said they had been ordered not to discuss Shiite divisions. Iraqi officials said the group of 100 to 600 fighters was discovered in the orchard Saturday night, leading to a midnight meeting of local authorities who hatched an attack plan.  “We agreed to carry out an operation to take them by surprise,” said Mr. Ghalal, the Najaf governor.

At dawn, the governor said, the area was surrounded and the offensive began. He said the militants had antiaircraft rockets and long-range sniper rifles, and, according to a soldier involved in the fighting, Iraqi security forces encountered heavy resistance. Commanders called for reinforcements and a brigade of soldiers from nearby Babil Province joined the fight.

Eventually, Iraqi officials said, they called on the United States military for help. American tanks and helicopter gunships arrived, and gun battles continued into the night. By 10:30 p.m., the gunfire had died down and Iraqi troops began searching the area for bodies.

Posted by The Skipper     on 01/29/2007 at 01:10 PM   
Filed Under: • Iraq •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Jumping The Fence

_{Paul Combs - The Tampa Tribune}

Posted by The Skipper     on 01/29/2007 at 12:28 PM   
Filed Under: • Iraq • Politics •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Iran’s Helping Hand?

You’ve got to be kidding me! Iran now wants to offer reconstruction aid to help rebuild the infrastructure their surrogates in the insurgency and Shiite militias helped blow up? Plus they are offering to send troops to “help” the security situation?

What do they think we are - complete idiots?

Oops! Scratch that last question. I see Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha have been traveling across the region from Iraq to Pakistan to Afghanistan. With those two over there the Iranians have every right to think we’re fools and jerks. Never mind ...

Iranian Reveals Plan to Expand Role in Iraq
_{BAGHDAD (NY TIMES) - Jan. 28, 2007}

Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad outlined an ambitious plan on Sunday to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iraq — including an Iranian national bank branch in the heart of the capital — just as the Bush administration has been warning the Iranians to stop meddling in Iraqi affairs.

Iran’s plan, as outlined by the ambassador, carries the potential to bring Iran into further conflict here with the United States, which has detained a number of Iranian operatives in recent weeks and says it has proof of Iranian complicity in attacks on American and Iraqi forces.

The ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, said Iran was prepared to offer Iraq government forces training, equipment and advisers for what he called “the security fight.” In the economic area, Mr. Qumi said, Iran was ready to assume major responsibility for Iraq reconstruction, an area of failure on the part of the United States since American-led forces overthrew Saddam Hussein nearly four years ago.

“We have experience of reconstruction after war,” Mr. Qumi said, referring to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. “We are ready to transfer this experience in terms of reconstruction to the Iraqis.”

Mr. Qumi also acknowledged, for the first time, that two Iranians seized and later released by American forces last month were security officials, as the United States had claimed. But he said that they were engaged in legitimate discussions with the Iraqi government and should not have been detained.

Mr. Qumi’s remarks, in a 90-minute interview over tea and large pistachio nuts at the Iranian Embassy here, amounted to the most authoritative and substantive response the Iranians have made yet to increasingly belligerent accusations by the Bush administration that Iran is acting against American interests in Iraq.

President Bush has said the American military is authorized to take whatever action necessary against Iranians in Iraq found to be engaged in actions deemed hostile.

The Iranian ambassador abruptly agreed to a longstanding request for the interview — made repeatedly after the first American seizure of Iranians here on Dec. 21 — and seemed eager to rebut the accusations.

In a surprise announcement, Mr. Qumi said Iran would soon open a national bank in Iraq, in effect creating a new Iranian financial institution right under the Americans’ noses. A senior Iraqi banking official, Hussein al-Uzri, confirmed that Iran had received a license to open the bank, which he said would apparently be the first “wholly owned subsidiary bank” of a foreign country in Iraq.

“This will enhance trade between the two countries,” Mr. Uzri said. Mr. Qumi said the bank was just the first of what he said would be several in Iraq — an agricultural bank and three private banks also intend to open branches. Other elements of new economic cooperation, he said, include plans for Iranian shipments of kerosene and electricity to Iraq and a new agricultural cooperative involving both countries.

He would not provide specifics on Iran’s offer of military assistance to Iraq, but said it included increased border patrols and a proposed new “joint security committee.”

Any Iranian military assistance to Iraq would be fraught with potential difficulties. Aside from provoking American objections, such assistance could further alienate Sunni Arabs, many of whom already suspect that Iran, overwhelmingly Shiite, is encouraging Iraq’s Shiite-led government in persecuting them.

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 01/29/2007 at 11:27 AM   
Filed Under: • Iraq •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

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:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

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.

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