Iran "Captures" U.S. Drone

I have to ask... How and why? How did they get their hands on a U.S. drone aircraft (in one piece) in the first place, and why was it not outfitted with a fail-safe internal or operator remote-control destructive device if these drones are such a big deal? We have the technical capability for either... or both!

The other question that crossed my mind is:
If the RQ-170 Sentinel drone's stealth technology is so relatively unimportant that we don't bother to protect it properly, why the heavy media coverage? Is it truly newsworthy, or is it "much ado about nothing" on an otherwise slow news day? I think the stealth fuselage itself would be worth protecting.

Just curious...

Iran Sentences 5 More To Death in Postelection Civil Turmoil

The sentencing of five more opposition leaders to death brings the total number given an order of supreme sacrifice by Islamic justice to eight. This is not surprising given the Islamic culture of the Arabic countries.

It began almost 3,800 years ago during the reign of Hammurabi, a little-known (outside of Biblical and Legal scholars) King of Babylon. A man of his time - a time of violence and upheaval - he instituted the "Code of Hammurabi", the earliest-known example of a ruler proclaiming publicly to his people an entire body of laws, arranged in orderly groups, so that all men might read and know what was required of them. The code was carved upon a black stone monument, eight feet high, and clearly intended to be reared in public view.

The code then regulates in clear and definite strokes the organization of society. The judge who blunders in a law case is to be expelled from his judgeship forever, and heavily fined. The witness who testifies falsely is to be slain. Indeed, all the heavier crimes are made punishable with death. Even if a man builds a house badly, and it falls and kills the owner, the builder is to be slain. If the owner's son was killed, then the builder's son is slain. We can see where the Hebrews learned their law of "an eye for an eye." These grim retaliatory punishments take no note of excuses or explanations, but only of the fact--with one striking exception. An accused person was allowed to cast himself into "the river," the Euphrates. Apparently the art of swimming was unknown; for if the current bore him to the shore alive he was declared innocent, if he drowned he was guilty. So we learn that faith in the justice of the ruling gods was already firmly, though somewhat childishly, established in the minds of men.

There were 282 of these "laws" established in the code, most of which call for a penalty of death if violated, which today's western culture views as outrageously cruel. But there was no "western world" known at that time. The Code of Hammurabi is the foundation of all law in the majority of middle eastern countries. Add to that Muslim sharia law, which is itself draconian in nature, and you have a recipe for extreme punishment for what westerners would consider relatively minor offenses.

During the period of unrest and civil disturbance following Iran's recent questionable election, the only fatalities were inflicted upon the opposition by the government security forces. Those prisoners identified as being members of the opposition were, for the most part, charged with civil disturbances and property crimes (vandalism), neither of which would warrant the death penalty in any civilized society. But sharia "law" is a law that punishes victims of crime as quickly as it punishes the criminal.

Where is the world's outrage against such extreme penalties for relatively minor violations of law? Where are the bleeding heart liberals? Where is the loud voice of the international press? Where is a statement deploring these Draconian punishments from the President of the United States? Why are these actions treated by most as a footnote rather than a headline? This is the 21st century, not the 16th century BC!

"Big George" - A Plan To Eliminate Iran and Minimize American Casualties

The following is based upon information that is now about 7 years old. The plan described is still a viable plan, the only real question is one of government resolve. My trailing comments are based on current prevailing conditions...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the man who helped plan the first air war against Saddam in 1991, U.S. aircraft, armed with conventional bunker-buster bombs, would be more than enough to wipe out Iran's nuclear and missile facilities, and cripple its ability to command and control its military forces. Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney calls it the "Big George" scenario.

McInerney believes that U.S. air power is so massive, precise, and stealthy, it can effectively disarm Iran with just limited assistance from covert operators on the ground whose task would be to light up enemy targets.

In his "Big George" scenario, the United States would attack 1,000 targets in Iran. Fifteen B2 stealth bombers based in the United States and another 45 F117s and F-22s based in the region would carry out the initial waves of the attack, crippling Iran's long-range radar and strategic air defenses.

"Big George" would also target command and control facilities – Revolutionary Guards command centers, key clerics, and other regime-sensitive sites – in the hope of triggering a revolt against the clerical regime by opposition groups inside Iran.

That sounds like a plan to me! There are just a couple of potential glitches involved...

1. General McInerney is retired. Today, he has zero power, and probably the same amount of military influence... zero.
2. The "Big George" scenario was born during George W. Bush's first term.
3. Bush was a bit on the "hawkish side" of neutral, and may have initiated such a plan had the need presented itself. There was a believable threat there.
4. The current leftist Obama administration is in "cut-n-run" mode, as Obama busies himself running around the world apologizing for the United States, and releasing enemy combatants and terrorists. Based on his performance thus far, he cannot even create the illusion of a believable threat!
5. The Brits have intelligence indicating that Iran has Shahab-3 long-range missiles capable of delivering multiple nuclear warheads, and that Iran can now produce those nuclear warheads within 6-12 months.
6. Israel is somewhat concerned over the Brits intel. Can you say "preemptive strike"? (Unfortunately, Israel may find itself with minimal support [if any] from the U.S. in such an undertaking, due to the distinct absence of cojonés in Washington D.C.)
7. Much of the "Big George" scenario is dependent upon the availability of additional waves of carrier-based F-18s, as well as F-15s and F-16s launching from ground bases in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, and Bahrain, to take out Iran's known nuclear and missile sites. (What if these Muslim nations are not particularly inclined toward allowing the U.S. to launch attacks from within their borders? American "status of forces" agreements with foreign countries have always placed significant restrictions on what the USA may and may not do from within the borders of those foreign sovereign nations.)

As optimistic as "Big George" sounds, keep in mind that it was created under a different government administration, with a completely different philosophy about international confrontation. It could, perhaps, actually be accomplished in one or two days, with the proper leadership. Or, if the political clowns continue trying to run the war circus, it could turn into another Vietnam quagmire... complete with the loss of tens of thousands of American lives.

As always... there is a remote chance that I could have the wrong attitude about this whole thing, and we should all get in a big circle, hold hands, and sing "Kumbaya".

Obama Continues To Pander To Muslims, Desires Unsustainable World Conditions

In a much-touted speech delivered from Cairo, Barak Hussein Obama (NMP) outlined what he sees as the first and second greatest sources of tension between the Muslim world and the United States. Al-Qaeda topped his list, but Israel came in as the second greatest source of tension. The president said, “Israel has been depriving the Palestinians of their homeland for sixty years.”

The president made another point in his speech: “And any nation– including Iran –should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.” Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu does not believe that a state which is the center of gravity for world terrorism has the right to have any nuclear power, period.

My question is this: Is Obama's understanding of the history of the middle East that weak, or does he just choose to ignore that history it in favor of his Muslim brethren? It annoys me when people ignore - or worse, pervert - historical data to justify their own position. Everybody seems to overlook the fact that the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah were taken from the Jews by the Romans as retribution for the "Great Revolt" in 66AD. Jewish lands were seized and partitioned. The Jewish Kingdoms of Israel and Judah had existed for about 1,000 years before the Roman Emperor, Hadrian, partitioned it around 135AD and renamed the land that was Israel and Judea "Syria Palaestina". THERE WAS NO "PALESTINE" PRIOR TO THAT! True, the nation of Israel is built upon stolen land, but the Jews are not the thieves. That small plot of land called Israel was originally about thirty- five times larger than it is today, or roughly encompassing 85% of what we refer to today as the "middle East". Israel is recovered land!

His second point - in a display of absolute ignorance - supports Iran's continued nuclear development, which begs another question... why does a major oil-producing country need "nuclear power"? That is what Iranian President Mahmoud I'manutjob claims is their goal. This claim from a country whose entire national culture seems to be built around the total destruction of tiny Israel! The frothing-at-the-mouth, mad-dog leadership of Iran has frequently called for Israel to "be wiped from the face of the Earth". Not only does it show Obama's ignorance, this international kow-towing will be seen by the "Muslim world" as yet another sign of American lack of resolve and weakness.

The evolution of international relationships is based on a popular rule of triadic interaction: "the friend of my friend is my friend, the friend of my enemy is my enemy, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the enemy of my friend is my enemy". The rule is shown to lead to the formation and preservation of unipolar and bipolar configurations of nations, with the strengths of relationships, both friendly and conflictual, intensifying through time. International alliances are also conditions of convenience for each member of the alliance. When, at some point in time, the risks of such an alliance are seen to outweigh the benefits, one or more of the parties involved will "jump ship" out of a sense of self-preservation. This may be more than just an abandonment of the alliance... your old ally may defect to the "other side", becoming the friend of your enemy.

I submit that, based upon human behavioral patterns, there is a quaternary interdiction - "the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend". International "befriending" is based upon which of the available competing nations is best liked ... or, for those of you of the "cup is half empty" persuasion, that nation which is the least despised. Those are conditions which are subject to change at any given point in time.

As I have said before, in any negotiation, personal or international, he who negotiates from a position of strength will always walk away from the negotiating table with "the lion's share". One cannot successfully negotiate from a position of weakness (in the animal kingdom the weak are referred to as "food").

I could be absolutely wrong about this... show me.

Iran's President Mahmoud I'manutjob Rejects Western Nuclear Proposal

That's real close to the way the Reuters headline read. What's going on in the world? Did somebody accidentally leave the doors unlocked at some of the world's larger Laughing Academies, and now the lunatics are running those countries? Mahmoud I'manutjob, Kim Jong-il, and Robert Mugabe... how's that for a trifecta? Luckily, North Korea (Kim) and Zimbabwe (Mugabe) are so broke they can't even pay attention.

The people of North Korea - other than the ruling party - are dependent upon foreign aid for their basic subsistence. The DPRK can't feed their own people, but they apparently have LOTS of money to spend on missile development programs. What's wrong with that picture?

Zimbabwe's rate of inflation surged to 3,731.9%, driven by higher energy and food costs, and amplified by a drop in its currency, official figures show. That is according to their own Central Statistical Office. The Cato Institute reports that as of November 2008, Zimbabwe’s monthy inflation rate was 79,600,000,000.00% percent. Their annual inflation rate was calculated to be 89,700,000,000,000,000,000,000% - that's 89.7 Sextillion (10²¹) percent! It increases by 98.4% every 27 hours! The difference between them and the DPRK, is that the Zimbabwean government isn't a threat to anybody... except their own people. What has put them in this position? According to the BBC it was "driven by higher energy and food costs, and amplified by a drop in its currency, official figures show." What's concerns me about that is that it's the same path Obama is taking the USA down!

The last nutter, and quite possibly the most dangerous of the three, is the government of Iran. Iran's (public) leadership comes from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but the real power is wielded from behind the scenes by the head religious fanatic - Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The only "silver lining" I can find in that particular dark cloud, is my personal belief that Israel will not live in fear of one of their neighbors, and they will eliminate the Iranian's ablility to produce intermediate-range missiles and nuclear technology through preemptive military strikes.

There's an outside chance that I could be absolutely wrong about this... outside the realm of believability.

"May You Live In Interesting Times" - ancient Chinese curse

Interesting times, indeed! Any point in time is "interesting" for somebody... whether they are struggling for their life, or fly fishing in a quiet stream. Interesting is a relative term - relative to humdrum or boring. Our present time is one I find quite interesting.

Among those things of interest to me are the troubles in the middle East, the world-wide recession, the election of a socialist as the President of the United States and his appointment of various incompetents to Cabinet posts, "swine flu"/H1N1 virus, what is essentially the nationalization of two-thirds of the US automotive industry and many of our financial institutions, and the preference a 2" long fish is given over the jobs of 80,000 farm workers - causing an immediate and critical shortage of American grown vegetables from California. Let's look at them one-by-one.

The middle East of which I write consists primarily of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan and all the other, relatively calm, "flyover" countries in between.

Afghanistan has its own unique set of problems. For decades (perhaps centuries) Afghanistan's main cash crop has been heroin, and the leadership had been primarily Islamic fundamentalists. The paradox is that, even in a major narcotic producing country such as Afghanistan, drug abuse is illegal. And punishments for breaking their drug laws are much more Draconian than our own. Death is about as severe as a penalty can... get short of perhaps death by torture. Add to that problem a heavy influx of Western military personnel, bringing with them a perception (real or not) of invasion, and a reactive, militant Taliban, and you have a fine recipe for chaos! The intelligent thing for the Taliban to do? Sit quietly and do nothing. Sooner than later, the Western forces will depart, and then Aghanistan can go back to business as usual. Turn that blind eye toward the heroin poppy crops and drug "smuggling" (nudge-nudge, wink-wink), reinstate Sharia law, subjugate females again ... all the fun things of Islam.

Iraq gets the same recommendation: cool your heels until the West leaves, then complete your struggle for control against the democratically elected government. They will quickly fold, and you win! Why fight against a multinational force with superior technology, weaponry, and training. You have something they don't... the desire to be there! Leave them alone and they will get bored and go back to wherever they came from. They are not there to take over your country. Besides... who but you would want it? I see it as nothing more than a gigantic litter box!

Pakistan... what can I say about Pakistan? They're having some internal strife, caused by the Taliban in the Swat valley. They also seem to have the motivation, and the forces and necessary logistics ability, to deal with that strife. The West should just sit back and watch from afar, as the situation there develops. Let the Pakistanis decide their own destiny. If the government asks for assistance perhaps provide logistical support, but no "boots on the ground".

The real problem in the middle East is Iran. Perhaps not the people of Iran, but the mentally deranged leadership of Iran. Their "elected" president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and their religous leader - who is the actual power in Iran - Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are two nuts from the same tree. First of all, they believe that Israel should be "wiped from the face of the Earth", which is a position that sounds pretty much non-negotiable right now. It's almost as if "Kill the Jews, and Death to The Great Satan (that's the USA)" has become their national motto. Add to that attitude, the fact that today, May 20th 2009, Iran announced the successful launch of a Sajjil-2 missile with approximately a 1,200-1,550 mile (2000-2500km) range, which can easily reach into Israel. Now, throw in Iran's unmonitored, super-secret nuclear program, and Israel has a genuine reason for concern. In the past, the surrounding Arab nations have discovered that Israel does not like surprises from outside their country. In fact, when it comes time for somebody to jump up and yell, "SURPRISE!!", it's the Israelis who prefer that role. It is not outside the realm of belief that, for some time, Israel has been busying themselves developing strategies to deal with just that type of situation before it becomes a problem for them. Can you say preemptive strike? History has shown that the Israelis don't start trouble where there is none - they specialize in ending those troubles!

And, speaking of surprises... did the world-wide recession come as a surprise to you? It caught me off-guard, for sure. Luckily, I have no personal investments, or at least no direct personal investments to watch evaporate. I'm sure my credit union has some going with my money, but I still feel that it's relatively safe, even though my money may be inflated more than the Goodyear blimp. For decades, The USA has been the world's largest consumer of those things we call "consumables". We have done our part! Our consuming of consumables made consumption by lesser consumers look miserly. So what happened? Unfortunately, I do not have even a tenuous grasp of international economics, so I can't make an educated guess. What I can do is provide this quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

3. You cannot help small men up by tearing big men down.

4. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
5. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
6. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.

7. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
8. You cannot establish sound social security on borrowed money.

9. You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
10. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

Abraham Lincoln

Since the 1940s these “Ten Points” attributed to Lincoln have been widely reprinted. They have appeared in such places as magazines, Christmas cards, and the Congressional Record. However, the Library of Congress and Lincoln scholars believe that any connection made between Lincoln and the “Ten Points” is spurious. On the other hand, they are "good ol' homespun, common sense" statements - the type for which Lincoln was known.

As for the President and his Cabinet appointments - what is, is! Sadly, the American people must now live (hopefully) with it. I find Obama's apparent lack of birth certification interesting...

"Swine flu"... SCARY! Well worth being aware of, but not worth putting oneself into panic-overdrive. It's interesting that there have been relatively few fatalities from the H1N1.

Nationalizing private industry and financial institutions is socialism at its finest! Next will be the unsuccessful attempts at firearms confiscation, control of food supplies by banning home gardens, rationing of fuels, national health care, etc. It will be interesting to see just how all that plays out.

Eliminating the critical irrigation system to the largest single produce-growing area of our country - California - to save a 2" long freshwater smelt! However, smelt are not naturally freshwater fish, but were introduced into the freshwater ecosystem by man! Isn't that interesting? Somebody needs to start a "SAVE THE HUMANS" campaign!

There is always a chance I could be wrong about this, but we certainly do live in "interesting times".

The Great "Can't Afford It Giveaway" of the Obama Administration

The Palestinian Prime Minister is seeking $2.8 BILLION to rebuild Palestine after Israel retaliated for continued shelling of Israeli settlements from Palestine. In what parallel universe does this make sense? Rewarding the aggressor for creating an unwinnable situation for themselves makes absolutely no sense at any level, yet - according to Time Magazine - the cash-strapped U.S. is expected to provide approximately $900,000,000 (roughly 1/3) of that money. Where are the oil-rich Arab nations, who have gouged the entire world for years on the price of oil? Why are they not providing ALL the money to repair the damage done to Palestine?

I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who provoke a confrontation of any kind, and then come out on the short end. They, by their direct actions, have earned whatever fate befalls them, be it victory or defeat. Had Palestine been victorious, and crushed Israel, there would be rejoicing and celebrations throughout the Muslim world. As things stand, the Palestinians have just provided one more embarrassment to the Arab nations since the Six-Day War of 1967. In that war tiny Israel defeated the armies of the neighboring states of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, even with the nations of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria contributing troops and arms to the other Arab forces. At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The results of that war still affect the geopolitics of the region to this day, although Israel has released control of most of those lands.

There is no reward for "Second Place" in a war. There are only victors and the vanquished. The U.S. has been among the recipients of victory in most conflicts/confrontations in which it participated, with two notable exceptions - North Korea, which was more or less called a "draw", and Vietnam, where American politicians lack of support lost the war for us.

Until this year, there had been no incident in the history of the world, where those captured in combat were given civil trials, provided with civilian attorneys, and allowed all the Constitutional rights of a citizen. The Military Tribunal has always tried captured enemy forces (as military if in uniform, and as spies if not in uniform). Spies have always been the recipients of swifter and more severe (i.e. - firing squad) punishment, perhaps just for lacking the courage to don a uniform.

"Assassins" go back to the beginning of recorded history, although the classification of a crime intentionally resulting in the loss of one human life as an "assassination" has, until recently, been restricted to political leaders. John Lennon wasn't "assassinated" - he was murdered. Assassins generally work alone and have only one particular target to deal with at a time. Julius Caesar was assassinated - oddly enough by multiple assassins.

Obama has chosen to disuse the term "enemy combatant" also - perhaps he plans to replace it with "misdirected ally" or "misunderstood friend". Euphemisms change nothing! A spade is still a spade, a shovel is a shovel, and one whom you engage in combat is still an ENEMY COMBATANT!

It follows that the next terms to become politically incorrect are "terrorist" and "terrorism". Granted, one mans' terrorist is another mans' freedom fighter, but when you are on the receiving end of an attack by one or more persons dressed to blend in with the local population, and wearing explosive underwear, parking a bomb-laden vehicle, or firing full-automatic weapons, you often fail to see the "freedom fighter". If commandeering airplanes and flying them into heavily-populated buildings, or setting off bombs in crowded civilian areas, or beheading other human beings are not designed to induce terror within a specific population, by definition becoming terrorism, and making those who comited those acts de facto terrorists, then I do not understand the term at all!

Have I digressed from my topic? No - not really. Palestine has a relatively high concentration of non-uniformed spies, paramilitary combatants, and civilian sympathizers/supporters. Why is our government providing them with $900 million - which we can ill-afford, and which could very easily be redirected from "humanitarian aid" to "insurgent support"? Where does our money come from? Primarily we borrow it from CHINA of all places! So we're borrowing money, to give away to people who at the very least dislike us (and who, if given the opportunity, would probably kill us all as we slept in our beds). Why does an idea like this seem so intellectually foreign to me?

I could be wrong about this ... and the Supreme Leader of Iran , Grand Ayatollah Ali Hoseyni Khamenei, could be a closet Catholic ... but I seriously doubt it!

How to End The Conflict(s) In the Middle East ...

Here's a quick fix for the armed conflicts throughout the Middle East! Build one squadron of 'crop dusters' with oversize spray nozzles. Fill their tanks with liquefied bacon grease, and spray the entire Middle East with it. The Muslim faithful will then have to stay indoors, thereby limiting their ability to engage in combat ... and their ability to eat for an extended period! Eventually they will starve to death - problem resolved.
It works for ME!