Wednesday - December 14, 2011

The DC Garbage Nazis

WASHINGTON - It’s the law in D.C. - recycle or face a fine from the Department of Public Works. But is enforcement of the law going too far?

Dupont Circle resident Patricia White says she has been fined eight times for throwing homemade cat litter in her trash. The fines total $2,000. White says she shreds old newspaper and junk mail to use as cat litter. She believes she is helping the environment by reusing the paper and avoiding cat litter you will find in stores.

After being fined several times, White says she called the Department of Public Works inspector who issued the tickets. According to White, the inspector admitted to digging through trash looking for violations. White even appealed the violations in D.C. court. Judge Audrey Jenkins agreed with the inspector after White explained the situation. FOX 5 tried to reach Judge Jenkins, but her office has declined to comment.

D.C. Council Member Jack Evans says DPW is going too far with its recycling enforcement. He demanded a meeting with DPW Director Bill Howland to discuss White’s case.

White says she will continue to fight the citations and continue to dispose of her cat’s litter in the trash and not in the recycling bin.

We have paper recycling here in Clinton too. Newspapers, magazines, cardboard. But if you shred the paper it becomes garbage, and if the paper is soiled with either food or feces it is NOT recyclable. I think the garbage nazis in DC and Judge Stoopid ought to get a better grip on reality. Besides, newspaper is organic, so it can decompose, and it will decompose more readily once it is cut into little bits and soaked with something, especially something that happens to be an organic acid. Like cat pee.

Yet another case of A Bridge Too Far that has connected the insane asylum with the powers of government.

Posted by Drew458     on 12/14/2011 at 08:32 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Stoopid-People • Tyrants and Dictators •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - October 20, 2011

Got Him

Updated: Thursday, 20 Oct 2011, 7:40 AM EDT
Published : Thursday, 20 Oct 2011, 7:40 AM EDT

SIRTE, Libya - Libyan strongman Moamar Ghadafi has been captured, a Transitional National Council military commander said Thursday.

“He has been captured. He is badly wounded, but he is still breathing,” Mohamed Leith told AFP, adding that he saw Ghadafi himself and that he was wearing a khaki uniform and a turban.

Ghadafi was said to be wounded in both legs, according to Reuters, which said he was detained near Sirte.

Libyan TV channel Libya lil Ahrar also said that he was in custody.

However, the TNC’s UK spokesman, Mahmoud Nacua, warned that there was “not enough information” to confirm Ghadafi’s capture, and a former TNC spokesman in Britain, Guma al Gamati told Sky News that “this is not confirmed.”

Sirte, Ghadafi’s hometown and the last bastion of his supporters, was the last holdout against TNC forces. The town’s capture, which both military officials and new regime political sources said was expected later Thursday, would pave the way for the TNC to officially take control of Libya and move its headquarters away from its Benghazi stronghold in the east to the capital, Tripoli.

SIRTE, Libya (Reuters) - Former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi died of wounds suffered on Thursday as fighters battling to complete an eight-month-old uprising against his rule overran his hometown Sirte, Libya’s interim rulers said.

His killing, which came swiftly after his capture near Sirte, is the most dramatic single development in the Arab Spring revolts that have unseated rulers in Egypt and Tunisia and threatened the grip on power of the leaders of Syria and Yemen.

“He (Gaddafi) was also hit in his head,” National Transitional Council official Abdel Majid Mlegta told Reuters. “There was a lot of firing against his group and he died.”

Reports are conflicting. Some say he was caught in a spider hole like Saddam, and surrendered. Yet somehow managed to get shot in the legs twice, and then in the head? Other reports say he was gunned down by a NATO attack on a fleeing convoy of vehicles. And so on. No word on whether the new “battle-dozer” had anything to do with his death or capture, but it also appears that the town of Sirte has fallen. And that should be about the end of the fighting in Libya. Now, show us his body, and show us how it’s disposed of, so we infidels can learn. Betcha they throw his corpse to the dogs.

details on this armored creation here



UPDATE 2: Rat In A Drain Ditch

the drain pipe where Muammar was hiding when he was captured ... and then executed? Lyndon gives us the latest news link!

14:03 NTC spokesman Abdel Hafez Ghoga says: “We announce to the world that Kadhafi has been killed at the hands of the revolution. It is an historic moment. It is the end of tyranny and dictatorship. Kadhafi has met his fate,” he added.

14:00 PM David Cameron to give statement on reports of Gaddafi’s death imminently.

13:57 The revolutionary fighter who says he saw the capture of Gaddafi tells Sky News he hit him with his shoe (one of the worst insults in the Islamic faith). He was reportedly shot once in the head and once in each leg.

13:54 NTC spokesman Abdel Hafiz Ghoga also now confirming the former leader’s death.

13:52 If reports are found to be true that Gaddafi was found in a hole underground in District 2 in his hometown of Sirte, the similarities to the capture of Saddam Hussein are unavoidable. The Iraqi dictator was discovered in a small, underground hole concealed next to farm buildings near the his own hometown of Tikrit. He had been hiding out for months with a handful of his most loyal aides.

Rat in a drain ditch
Caught on a limb
You know better but
I know him

14:34 Let’s recap all reports of deaths and captures. Just to be clear, none have yet been independently verified:

Muammar Gaddafi: Dead - NTC officials

Mutassim Gaddafi, Col Gaddafi’s fifth son: Dead - NTC officials

Moussa Ibrahim, Gaddafi’s spokesman: Captured - NTC officials

Abu Bakr Yunis, former defence minister: Killed in Gaddafi’s convoy - NTC officials

Ahmed Ibrahim, Gaddafi’s cousin and adviser: Captured. - Mlegta.

Mansour Daw, Gaddafi aide: Captured. - Libya TV

cellphone pic of captured Gaddafi, mostly dead

Posted by Drew458     on 10/20/2011 at 06:47 AM   
Filed Under: • Middle-East • RoPMA • Tyrants and Dictators •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - September 17, 2011

What WMDs?

If we had delayed even a couple of months, until Saddam actually had his deadly pathogens and gas weapons, it would have meant the deaths of tens of thousands of American soldiers. And if those weapons had found their way into terrorist hands, it would have doomed millions. But did Saddam have these kinds of connections? Was he a global terror threat akin to al-Qaeda? The common wisdom says no. The common wisdom is wrong.

When American tanks smashed into Baghdad, Saddam had already completed construction of an anthrax production facility, which was a week away from going live. If it had been permitted to go into production, this one facility could have produced ten tons of weaponized anthrax a year.

Dual-use, mobile bio labs, hundreds of suicide bombers in training, direct links to dozens of terrorist groups throughout the Middle East and major funding to them, operatives kitted up and ready to attack in a dozen countries, half a thousand tons of yellowcake, a 40 fold increase in WMD spending ... the list goes on and on. Saddam Hussein was on the very, very cusp of the vertical part of the logarithmic curve of WMD growth when the USA invaded in March 2003. Another month’s delay would have given him enough poison to kill tens of thousands of our soldiers. Another year and he could have wiped out half the world. That was why we were “rushing to war” Senator Kennedy.

According to documents discovered after the war, by 1997 the number of university “instructors” doing solely WMD work numbered 3,300, with another 700 to 800 dispatched to WMD-related facilities to help with technical problems. Between 1996 and 2002 — the eve of the invasion — spending on WMD projects increased 40-fold, and the number of specific projects increased from 40 to 3,200. Top officials captured after the collapse of the regime repeatedly told investigators that Saddam’s WMD projects were in overdrive and ready to go into production the moment sanctions were lifted.

You mean those horrible sanctions that the evil USA was using to starve poor but happy kite flying Iraqi children? The sanctions the Democrats wanted lifted? The sanctions the whole Oil For Food scandal was doing an end run around anyway? (hey, whatever happened with Oil For Food? Why wasn’t France fined a hundred zillion for that? Did anybody anywhere get into any actual real trouble?)

A good analogy for the links between Saddam and bin Laden is the Cali and Medellín drug cartels. Both drug cartels (actually loose collections of families and criminal gangs) were serious national-security concerns to the United States. The two cartels competed for a share of the illegal drug market. However, neither cartel was reluctant to cooperate with the other when it came to the pursuit of a common objective — expanding and facilitating their illicit trade. The well-publicized and violent rise of the Medellín cartel temporarily obscured and overshadowed the rise of, and threat posed by, the Cali cartel, in the same way that 9/11 camouflaged the terror threat posed by Saddam. In reality Saddam and bin Laden were operating parallel terror networks aimed at the United States. Bin Laden just has the distinction of having made the first horrendous attack.

Given the evidence, it appears that we removed Saddam’s regime not a moment too soon.

And all of this is in the Duelfer Report, the document that the media claims proved there were NO WMDs in Iraq ... because they never even bothered to read past the first page’s Executive Summary.

And let’s not ignore the other salient facts: the pre-invasion inspectors were played like a violin, the post-invasion inspectors were often under fire, you can hide damn near anything under the sand in a desert, and allah alone knows how many of his researchers were silenced or never interviewed or killed during the invasion and their documents destroyed accidentally. In all likelihood things were even worse; we’ll never know.

via BlackFive

Posted by Drew458     on 09/17/2011 at 10:09 AM   
Filed Under: • Iraq • Tyrants and Dictators • War On Terror •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - May 06, 2011

Captain Clueless Takes The Credit?

This might go a long way towards explaining why the OBL story seems to change by the hour. A 4 page insider’s story that Obama and his minion Jarret are blithering indecisive idiots, and that the whole OBL mission was run by Leon Panetta, with support from Hillary. Or is it just another whack job conspiracy “anonymous source” story written by one of her supporters? It sure goes a long way towards explaining that now famous “Situation Room” picture, where TOTUS looks more like a bad puppy caught peeing on the carpet than Our Bold Progressive War Leader. Hell, look at it: he’s not sitting at the head of the table. He’s not even sitting in a “big people” chair. He’s squatting on the floor. There isn’t even a chair for him to sit in. They just stuck him in for a photo op.

Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound.  Was that accurate?

A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so.  President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.

I have been told by more than one source that Leon Panetta was directing the operation with both his own CIA operatives, as well as direct contacts with military – both entities were reporting to Panetta only at this point, and not the President of the United States.  There was not going to be another delay as had happened 24 hour earlier.  The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated.  President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission.  Upon his arrival there was a briefing held which included Bill Daley, John Brennan, and a high ranking member of the military.  When Obama emerged from the briefing, he was described as looking “very confused and uncertain.” The president was then placed in the situation room where several of the players in this event had already been watching the operation unfold.

The President of the United States, the Commander In Chief of all the military overruled?

That’s called a coup ladies and gentlemen. Treason in the highest degree. A junta, even if it was one that only lasted a few hours. Obama the sock puppet, his strings pulled from behind the curtain. If this story is even remotely true, how can you have the smallest measure of faith that these strings aren’t being pulled on a daily basis? Read the article.

Posted by Drew458     on 05/06/2011 at 08:11 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Obama, The One • Tyrants and Dictators •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - March 25, 2011

dark comedy

Posted by Drew458     on 03/25/2011 at 02:07 PM   
Filed Under: • Military • Tyrants and Dictators •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - March 21, 2011

Do We Get A Choice?

An attack on the compound of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi on Sunday had to be curtailed because of journalists nearby, Fox News has learned.

British sources confirmed that seven Storm Shadow missiles were ready to be fired from a British aircraft, but the strikes had to be curtailed due to crews from CNN, Reuters and other organizations nearby. Officials from Libya’s Ministry of Information brought those journalists to the area to show them damage from the initial attack and to effectively use them as human shields.

The curtailment of this mission led to a great deal of consternation by coalition commanders, sources told Fox News, but they opted to call off the mission to avoid civilian casualties.

During a Pentagon briefing on Monday, coalition commanders said the huge compound was targeted due to its air defense systems on the perimeter and a military command and control center. It was not targeted to kill Qaddafi, commanders said.

Meanwhile, U.S. military officials said on Monday that Qatar is sending six planes to Libya to participate in support missions, becoming the third Arab nation to send aircraft to the African nation. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) also announced on Monday that its role in Libya is “strictly confined” to the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Libya.

Posted by Drew458     on 03/21/2011 at 01:41 PM   
Filed Under: • Media-Bias • Middle-East • Tyrants and Dictators •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

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.

PETER HITCHENS

Posted by peiper     on 03/21/2011 at 07:05 AM   
Filed Under: • Tyrants and Dictators • War-Stories •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - March 19, 2011

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.

SOURCE

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 •  

France Over Libya

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.

Latest developments:

* 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

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
Zimbabwe

Age: 85
In power since: 1980
Last year’s rank: 6

Inflation 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 •  

   Monday - November 29, 2010

John Galt Leaves Paradise

Fiji Water on Monday closed its operations in the South Pacific country that gives the popular bottled drink its name, saying it was being singled out by the military appointed government for a massive tax increase.

A company statement announcing the decision did not say whether the company was shutting down permanently in Fiji, where an acquifer deep underground has been the source of one of the world’s most popular bottled water brands. The company, owned by California entrepreneurs Lynda and Stewart Resnick, said it was closing its facility in Fiji, canceling orders from suppliers and putting on hold several construction contracts in the country.

But the company wanted to keep operating in Fiji and was willing to hold discussions with the government about that, said the statement, issued from the company’s headquarters in Los Angeles.  In the statement, Fiji Water president John Cochran said Fiji’s government announced last week that it was imposing a new tax rate of 15 cents per liter on companies extracting more than 3.5 million liters (920,000 gallons) of water a month — up from the current one-third of one percent rate. Fiji Water is the only company extracting that much water.

“This new tax is untenable and as a consequence, Fiji Water is left with no choice but to close our facility in Fiji,” the company, which sells its bottled water in more than 40 countries, said.

The tax rise comes amid a deep downturn in Fiji’s economy that is blamed on political instability following a coup in 2006 by armed forces chief Commodore Frank Bainimarama — Fiji’s fourth coup since 1987. Key trading partners have imposed various sanctions on the government, including European Union restrictions on the vital sugar industry.

Bainimarama’s government has also taken a hard line with foreign companies. Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd. in September sold its controlling stake in Fiji’s main daily newspaper after the government imposed strict new foreign ownership limits on media companies. Bainimarama did not immediately comment on Fiji Water’s statement.

Cochran said Fiji Water was the only company that would be affected by the tax increase.

Funny how some businesses are. Even ones like this one with what I assume are fairly low overhead and high profit margins. Hit them up with massive tax increases that put them on the far side of the Laffer curve, and they say to heck with it. Even if they could eat that new tax rate and still show a fat profit, or if they could jack up the price of their product to offset it and not impact sales.

Yes, this is perhaps a bit of gamesmanship. And I doubt that Fiji Water employs tens of thousands of locals. Probably only a hundred or even less. And the owners are raking it in. But you have to stand up to tyrants of all stripes. So I hope they take their pumping and bottling machinery with them and sail away. I wasn’t aware that sleepy little Fiji was ruled by a junta either. Screw that. Guess I’ll be crossing Fiji off my list of dream vacation spots.

Posted by Drew458     on 11/29/2010 at 10:23 AM   
Filed Under: • Taxes • Tyrants and Dictators •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - November 19, 2010

Some touching junk about touching some junk

You have to search for the terrorists. Fortunately, that’s the one advantage we have in this war. In a lucky stroke, all the terrorists are swarthy, foreign-born, Muslim males. (Think: “Guys Madonna would date.")

This would give us a major leg up—if only the country weren’t insane.

Is there any question that we’d be looking for Swedes if the 9/11 terrorists, the shoe bomber, the diaper bomber and the printer cartridge bomber had all been Swedish? If the Irish Republican Army were bombing our planes, wouldn’t we be looking for people with Irish surnames and an Irish appearance?

“Please have your genitalia out and ready to be fondled when you approach the security checkpoint.”

This is the punishment for refusing the nude body scan for passengers who don’t want to appear nude on live video or are worried about the skin cancer risk of the machines—risks acknowledged by the very Johns Hopkins study touted by the government.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that we need to keep the government as far away from airport security as possible, and not only because Janet Napolitano did her graduate work in North Korea.

Dear foreigners reading this blog: NOW do you get it? No search without a warrant, period. And a warrant based on probable cause, not generic suspicion. Right of personal privacy, period. We don’t give in to this because “it makes us safer”. It doesn’t. It’s a sham, driven by political correctness and willful blindness. YOU give in to this because your life sucks that you aren’t an American; you don’t know any better and you don’t have ANY rights. Except what your socialist-Marxist government decides what you can have. Today. But maybe not tomorrow. 

Posted by Drew458     on 11/19/2010 at 11:37 AM   
Filed Under: • Politically Correct B.S. • Tyrants and Dictators • War On Terror •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - October 10, 2010

This Preview is approved by the Constitution

Posted by Christopher     on 10/10/2010 at 08:47 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Obama, The One • Scary Stuff • Stoopid-People • Tyrants and Dictators •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - June 29, 2010

That Takes Balls

Is it April Fool’s Day again already? No? Then this really takes the cake. Kim-chee Jong mentally-Il, suffering from a terminal case of ESS.

Cash-strapped North Korea has demanded the United States pay almost $US65 trillion ($AU75 trillion) in compensation for six decades of hostility.

The official North Korean news agency, KCNA, says the cost of the damage done by the US since the peninsula was divided in 1945 is estimated at $US64.96 trillion.

The compensation call comes on the eve of the 60th anniversary of the start of the 1950-1953 Korean War.

KCNA said the figure includes $US26.1 trillion arising from US “atrocities” which left more than 5 million North Koreans dead, wounded, kidnapped or missing.

The agency also claims 60 years of US sanctions have caused a loss of $US13.7 trillion by 2005, while property losses were estimated at $US16.7 trillion.

The agency said North Koreans have “the justifiable right” to receive the compensation for their blood.

It said the committee’s calculation did not include the damage North Korea had suffered from sanctions after its first nuclear test in 2006.

WTH, what with Obama in the White House, he’s got an even chance of collecting.



thanks to Rich K!

Posted by Drew458     on 06/29/2010 at 02:12 PM   
Filed Under: • Stoopid-People • Tyrants and Dictators •  
• Comments (6) • 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