Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Troops Go In, Troops Go Out

Is this an ironic situation or am I just to cynical?

Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi Announces Plan to Withdraw Troops From Iraq

Yet, we have no problem offering to help Japan.

U.S. to Deploy Patriot Missiles In Japan to Counter North Korea

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Jimmy Carter: History's Greatest Monster

Maybe not the greatest monster, but while watching the very interesting documentary Guests of the Ayatollah last night I could not get out of my mind that much of the terrorist activity that we are now dealing with would never have happened if Carter had destroyed Iran in 1979.

Hostages. There have been thousands taken over the years, but the word to me truly refers to only one group of people. The U.S. embassy personnel captured in Tehran when supposed Iranian "students" over ran the embassy in what is arguably the greatest humiliation ever suffered by the U.S. I call this a humiliation only because we did nothing to rectify the situation.

For example, we attacked and destroyed the al Queda's stronghold in Afghanistan after Sept. 11.
But with the hostages President Carter stood back and allowed a two-bit country to grind its boot heel onto our neck for 444 days.

I was only 16 when this event took place, but it left an indelible mark on my psyche. The greatest nation on earth refused to help its own people or punish its enemy. I'm not forgetting the infamous Desert One rescue attempt, which was such an unwieldly half-hearted plan that it was doomed form the start.

And Carter was to blame.

Granted, an attack on our part would most likely have cost the lives of the hostages and I'm sure I sound like a callous ass for saying this, but their deaths would have saved thousands of lives down the road. Our failure to either rescue the hostages or simply pound Iran back to the stone age gave terrorists the idea that the U.S. could be bullied, an assumption that continues to this day.

When our failure to act in 1979 is compounded by a similar decision made after the Beirut Marine Barracks were bombed and our abrupt withdrawal from Somalia then enemies like Osama bin Laden had a clear idea that he could, literally, get away with murder and we would not act.

I believe that all of this would have been nipped in the bud if Carter had immediately lashed out and eliminated the Ayatollah and his government when they took the hostages. A quick and devestating response would have shown our enemies that you don't f--- with us and get away with it.

Just think of what Iran has done since 1979. It is the primary funder of Hezbollah and Hamas. Has trained thousands of terrorists in Lebanon and now supports Shiite terrorists in Iraq. It threatens Israel with total destruction and has grand plans to instal a Caliphate throughout the region. And these are just Iran's better known manuevers.

If Iran had been reduced in 1979 the world would have been a better place. Thanks, Jimmy.

Monday, June 26, 2006


The NY Times is once again making more news then what it prints between its covers.

However, I can't blame the Times entirely. It takes two to tango and in much the same way a person can't blame just their spouse for having an affair, the Times was merely on the receiving end of the information.

The person whose truly deserves the nation's wrath is the government worker who gave up the secret. When found he should be shot as a traitor. Whatever reason he or she decides to tell the military tribunal that will hear the case is not strong enough to warrant the action. In all likelihood the culprit is against the war in Iraq and wanted to discredit the government.

This person actions put all of our lives in danger. Now that the terrorists know how we track their financial transactions they will switch methods, enabling them to fund their operations, which are intended to kill us.

Now, don't get me wrong. The Times' executives should have known better then to run the story. There was a time when journalists were trusted with the nation's greatest secrets, the day of the D-Day invasion, for example. The government knew that the reporter embarking on the mission would keep quiet. If not out of a sense of patriotism then to protect his own skin. After all why let the Germans know that you, along with eight divisions of troops would be landing early on June 6?

Instead the Times decided to risk their necks along with the rest of us. Why a reporter in 1944 would have a better sense of self-preservation then a managing editor in 2006 is interesting. Perhaps those in charge today have not seen enough senseless death up close to realize that they too could be killed by the next NY terror strike.

Perhaps a field trip by the Times' staff down to ground zero would be enough to remind these idiots of the stakes at which we are all playing.

If the Times guys are willing I'll even fork over some money for the subway fare. A fair price to pay to knock some sense into these fools.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

U.S. Out of World Cup

Yep we managed to lose 2-1 to Ghana. Where the hell is Ghana? I bet my kid's soccer league has more players then that entire country and yet we still can't manage to beat them. Pretty pathetic.

I expect the people the most upset by the loss are not the 145 people who followed the Cup so far, but the ESPN and ABC sports executives who have just lossed their only 145 World CUp viewers for the remaing two weeks of the tourney.

The sad thing is I like soccer, football, whatever its called. I played the game in high school and have a good time watching my kids play, but God help me it's more boring to watch then golf or professional Bass fishing. The field is always clogged in the middle and the players would rather use an illegal tactic and accept the penalty then allow a play to break free. Maybe if a the number of players on the field were limited to 9 that would help.

Now They Turn Into Hawks

William J. Perry Clinton's secretary of defense and Ashton B. Carter, assistant secretary of defense, in the Clinton administration today issued a statement through the Washington Post calling for the destruction of North Korea's ICBM test vehicle the Taepodong missile on its launch platform.

The open letter is strongly worded and makes complete sense. Citing that Bush's stated policy to make pre-emptive strikes against countries posing a threat to the U.S. was used to stop Iraq, which had only a nascent nuclear program when compared to North Korea, then there is no reason to let the Korean missile launch.

My question is where were these guys when Clinton was allowing North Korea to build the infrastructure necessary to create this missile. Perry was sworn into office in 1994. The same year Jimmy Carter went to North Korea, on his own hook, to strke a deal that would stop the North's nuclear program in exchange for all types of technological goodies, oil and food.

Did Perry ever bring up the idea of calling Jimbo back and simply nailing the nuclear and missile facilities? For his sake I hope he was pounding on Clinton's desk, probably disturbing the intern stationed below, begging for permission to attack. If he remained quiet then I hope Perry can live with his conscious.

Oddly, for a hawk like myself, I prefer the idea of blasting the North Korean missile out of the sky after the launch. If we could hit it, granted a big if, then it would prove our defensive capability essentially removing the threat. If we can shoot down enemy missile at will then North Korea can build all they want. I would imagine the Japanese and South Korean governments would not mind an anti-missile base in their countries along with some pretty Star Trekkie level gear coming online in the next few years. Such as the airborne laser system.

Hitting the missile on the ground is an act of war and could give North Korea and its crazy president cause to strike back. Perhaps the international uproar would not be so great as it seems the EU representatives meeting with the president in Vienna are supportive of a tougher stance against North Korea and Iran these days. Something that must have knocked Bush out of his chair when he heard it.

WMD Found In Iraq, But So What

Fox News is hyping this story as if it is a major breakthrough thus giving validation to the original reason we attacked Iraq.

The story is not news. Our troops have come across remnants of Iraq's old chemical arsenal since the first weeks of the war. Stray artillery shells filled with sarin and mustard gas were discovered almost immediately. And since Saddam had already used similar weapons on the Iranians and his own population in the past it should not have been a shock to find a few more floating about the desert. Everyone knew he had them. Everyone knew he was lying when he said his chemical stocks had been fully destroyed.

On the plus side the fact that 500 some odd weapons have been found since the invasion does show how much Saddam lied. I wouldn't be surprised if hundred more turn up. Saddam probably had them squirreled away all around the country. What would be nice to come across is a half-finished nuclear weapon or a mothballed underground nuclear assembly plant. That would give much more credence for our attack.

As it stands, and I've said this countless times, it was a mistake to remove Saddam from power based strictly on his WMD capability. He is a monster. He has killed hundreds of thousands of people, invaded two nations, and shown zero interest obeying the UN or ever behaving like a human being. And he created to monsters in training in his sons, who were ready to grab the reigns of power the minute their dad died or was murdered. Iraq and the region were doomed to another generation of genocide if the younger Hussein's every came to power.

The other pretext, which was brought up after the invasion,is that a firmly planted Islamic democracy in the Middle East could only bring us benefits down the road. If Iraq could be made stable then a case could be made that this would spread to its neighbors.

President Bush could then have thrown the possibility of finding WMD on top of his "reasons to go to war" pile.

But that is all water under the bridge. Now we have to see this through.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

What's Wrong With America

Here is a great example on OpinionJournal.

Defending Against the One Percent Attack

An interesting discussion was initiated over at G-Scobe today concerning whether or not the government is wasting its time worrying about low probability (one percent chance) terrorist attacks that if pulled off would create massive destruction.

My theory is if you add up enough one percent chances you end up with a pretty big threat.

While it may seem a waste of time to worry about something that is unlikely to happen that is the best way to defend a country. By definition the least likely avenue of attack is going to be the most vulnerable. A smart enemy is going to launch a low probability-high impact attack. A dumb enemy will charge into the teeth of your common sense defenses and should get caught or killed.

That is why VP Cheney, as stated on G-Scobe, has to give a high level of credence to something like Osama gaining nuclear weapons technology or even worse a working weapon. Is it unlikely that Osama is humping a tactical nuclear warhead around in his backpack. Yes. Would one such 30 kiloton weapon, say from the old Soviet stockpile of tactical nukes, wipe out Boston. You bet.

The US Army and Navy did not think the Japanese had the capability or nerve to strike Pearl Harbor. The French did not think the German Army could attack with heavy armored forces through the dense Ardennes forest in June 1940. Osama knew we did not take our airport security seriously (and still don't in my mind.) In each case an enemy picked the weakest and least likely place to strike and pulled off a massive victory. History is littered with similar cases.

On the other point brought up that our government is torturing mentally handicapped terrorists to gain information, well, that is tough to figure out. Personally, if you align yourself with a terrorist organization then you deserve a little torture. But that is a personal feeling.

From a practical standpoint I seriously doubt a tortured individual will give out any valuable information. They will say anything to simply stop the punishment. If the point of the torture is to punish fine, but if its intel is needed then there are better ways of obtaining the data.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Stars Wars Defense Activated

It is a very rare day indeed when the U.S. government announces that it might take the proper steps in dealing with a miserable, pissant little country.

Fox News is carrying a story that states the U.S. might try and shoot down any missile launched by North Korea with our fancy new anti-missile system that is located in Alaska and California. North Korea's dictator for life/despot/resident nut case Kim Jong Il's government said it might test an ICBM any day.

We of course launched the usual level of diplomatic bluster about santions and the Japanese said they would send a nasty letter to the UN if the launch took place, but that was it until today. I loved the Japanese response. It sounds more like the response one would send to a building landlord to complain about a noisy next door neighbor. With all the fancy electronics coming out of Sony, Mitsubishi and Panasonic one would think the government could contract for a combo DVD player/death ray to protect the island from North Korea.

While the U.S. might not be able to make its own televisions anymore, we do have a wonderful collection of aerospace firms in place that can make cool toys like the naval ship-based Aegis
antimissile system and the continental U.S. missile defense system.

A couple of Aegis equipped Navy ships are patrolling of North Korea's coast and might get in a quick shot, too.

It would be nice for the NKs to launch their missile just to we could blow it out of the sky. Maybe the wreckage can fall on Kim's head and solve two problems with one missile.

On the other hand the U.S. missile defense system has not had many, if any, truly succesful tests and it would be a major embarrassment if it missed the target. Although, I suppose if that happened we could just pretend the entire event did not happen and go on our merry way.

Friday, June 16, 2006

Another G-Scobe Salvo

Not content to admit defeat G-Scobe has fired back responses to my comments on his site.

Rear View Mirror takes issue with not one, but two posts.

Take the last one first. RVM writes:

All knocking does is give the crimminal:

A: Time to run

B: Time to hide or destroy evidence

C: Time to arm themselves and kill the arresting officers.

These people are going to have their doors smashed in one way or the other. By eliminating the warning the officers are better protected.

Of course, all this is dependent upon law enforcement obtaining a warrant or other judicial approval for the entry.

G-Scobe's answer:
That may be true, but as I mentioned, Balko has documented literally hundreds of cases where SWAT teams have busted in doors on the wrong home. Now, this isn't innocent police searches ala Dragnet, but paramilitary units that are heavily armed and keyed up. I do think there are mitigating circumstances, if you think you've got a terrorist enclave, by all means kick in the door. But if you're arresting some guy for reefer, at least knock before you kill his buzz.

My rebuttal:

There certainly are cases where the wrong home has been invaded. As I said, whether the police knocked or not would not have altered the end result. They were coming in.We've all seen the guys on Cops do this. Two knocks with a flashlight followed by a scream of POLICE, followed by the battering ram knocking in the door. Wrong address or not they were going to go in, at least by eliminating the warning they keep safe.

On the Israeli-Palestinian issue we have another disagreement. Basically, G-Scobe does not feel the issue can ever be resolved so why not toss in the towel. I am more optimistic, foolishly perhaps, but optimstic nonetheless. There is always an answer. It might be the total military defeat and expulsion of the Fatah/Hamas movements, probably the quickest way to end the problem, but not likely to happen in today's world.

It behooves us to find a solution because it will shut up every terrorist group and anti American government in the Middle East. All use the Palestinians as the primary reason for their actions, although anyone following the issue knows that the surrounding countries have treated the Palestinians even worse then the Israelis have. But if we find a way for peace it takes away what the crazies in the region their morale reason to fight.

Building Bridges

In an effort to boost the failing traffic on my blogging colleague G-Scobe's web site, I've agreed to republish several comments I made on his posts this week on Rear View Mirror. Once this vast effort to create synergy is complete the three people who read my site will be combined with the two that read G-Scobe creating a hit generating monster capable of taking on instapundit.

So with no further ado....

G-Scobe to linked to a Michael Young column that discusses why the U.S. should abandon its role as mediator between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Here is my follow up commentary.

That is a typical example of modern day thinking. If something is too hard just give up.

Adversity is not something that should be shied away from. It should be conquered. I'm not a big JFK fan, but this statement he made is a great example of why I think we should soldier through:

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard...

In addition, Israel is a friend and you should try and help your friends.

The US has more to gain by making the peace work, somehow, then it does it backing away. We might catch hell from other countries for not figuring out the problem, but we would catch just as much if we were not involved so we may as well try and help.

Good Ol' G-Scobe also mentioned the Supreme Court ruling upholding the right of police to not announce their intention of entering a home in order to execute a search warrant.

And because my life is boring and I have nothing else to think about here is my reply.

I don't think the original reason against no-knock entries is valid. The claim that it violates a persons Fourth Amendment right to unreasonable search is negated because the officers have a legal document allowing the entry.

All knocking does is give the crimminal:

A: Time to run
B: Time to hide or destroy evidence

C: Time to arm themselves and kill the arresting officers.

These people are going to have their doors smashed in one way or the other. By eliminating the warning the officers are better protected.

Of course, all this is dependent upon law enforcement obtaining a warrant or other judicial approval for the entry.

So let the synergy begin.

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Gotta Love The Spin

It seems that you just can't lose when you are an al Queda terrorists.

The death of al Queda in Iraq leader and all around murderer/terrorists Abu Musab al-Zarqawi garnered this response from the terror organizations leadership.

We want to give you the joyous news of the martyrdom of the mujahed sheik Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," said the statement, signed by "Abu Abdel-Rahman al-Iraqi," identified as the deputy "emir" or leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Yes, congratulations Abu! You have won an all expense paid trip to hell. Hopefully, where you will experience having your own head severed with a rusty, dull knife over and over for eternity.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

America: Home of the Foolish

AP: U.S. to give Iran nuclear technology

This is what happens when you throw in your towel with a bunch of Europeans.

I could have sworn we've just spent the past two years stating that we did not want Iran to have any such technology. What has changed in the past week to make the US change its mind on this topic. Has Iran renounced terrorism? Decided that Israel had the right to live? Stopped threatening to cut off the world's supply of oil? Stopped cracking down on those of its citizens who are sick of living in a 16th century theocracy?

No, Iran's leaders continue with their near daily screeds against all things not Iran.

So the only thing that has changed is the President decided to go along and join with Germany, France and the UK in talks with Iran. Talks that so far have generated nothing, but one letter from Iran to George Bush that said if we totally give in to their demands they will still build nuclear weapons.

It boggles my mind and makes me worry about the future my children will inherit when we have morons of the highest calibre coming up with such great diplomatic ideas.