Goodbye Barry - Welcome Home AMERICA!

Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts

Saturday, March 27, 2010

OBAMA'S ARROGANCE CONTINUES TO ALIENATE ALLIES

The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, returned to Israel after an apparently disastrous meeting with the US President, Barack Obama, in Washington.

According to leaked accounts reported in the Israeli media, Mr Obama humiliated Mr Netanyahu by leaving the meeting early.

''I'm going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls,'' Mr Obama reportedly said, adding that Mr Netanyahu should consult his aides about goodwill gestures Israel was prepared to make towards the Palestinians before renewed peace talks. '''I'm still around,'' he said. ''Let me know if there is anything new.''

Obama insisting that Israel's Prime Minister to release land to Palestine, is similar to Netenyahu doing something really stupid, like demanding that Obama give the USA back to the native Americans. The only differences being that Israel's land - the kingdoms of Israel and Judah - was stolen from them almost 2,000 years ago by the Romans, and restored to them in May 14, 1948 by the United Nations. There was NO PALESTINE PRIOR TO THAT INITIAL ACT OF THEFT BY ROME! We stole the USA much more recently, so it remains in our collective memory by way of our history books... until the liberals are done re-writing history, that is.

In the face of increasing violence between Arabs and Jews, the British handed the issue over to the United Nations. The result was Resolution 181, a partition plan to divide Palestine between Jews and Arabs. On 29 November 1947, the plan was put to a vote in the United Nations General Assembly. The result was 33 to 13 in favor of the plan, with 10 abstentions.

Obama has no right to attempt to dictate to the leadership of other sovereign nations, and then childishly snub them when they refuse to comply. He can request or suggest, but he has no right to demand specific behavior on any internal matter... unless he's considering a Declaration of War. (That would not surprise me in the least, considering what a Muslim-lover he is, as verified by his canceling the National Day of Prayer this year while inviting Muslims to worship at the White House.)
Never before in our history has a President made a World Apology Tour, while almost simultaneously demonstrating such arrogance!
And last, but not least, remember this...
It's time to set this country back on its intended course!

Monday, August 3, 2009

"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".

Friday, June 5, 2009

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.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

"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".

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Israeli Shells Kill 42 at UN School - Hamas Cowards Hide

"GAZA (Reuters) – Israeli shelling killed more than 40 Palestinians on Tuesday at a U.N. school where civilians had taken shelter, medical officials said ..." and, of course, the liberal media is blaming Israel for the collateral damage in its retaliation against Hamas rocket attacks on Israel.

Why is it that the international press - collectively - choose to defend the wrong side in almost every encounter between the forces of good and evil? Hamas continues to provoke Israel, at every opportunity and, personally, I'm tiring of the whiny liberal media implying (when not simply stating outright) that Israel is the bad guy here! This is the same, warped, left-wing reasoning they used when they implied that the US was the initiator of the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center! Where is the international outrage over Robert Mugabe's tyrannical rule of Zimbabwe, which he retains against the expressed will of the Zimbabwean people? Where is the hue and cry over Hamas' rocket attacks and homicide bombings against Israel? I use the word "homicide" as opposed to the PC word, "suicide", because if the Hamas Muslim cowards could get away with it they would not sacrifice their own lives to kill anybody. And I use the word "cowards" because they do not wear uniforms so they may blend in with, and hide - like the yellow dogs they are - within the civilian population. That is the root cause of all collateral damage in Gaza! Any moral government will go to extreme lengths to avoid inflicting civilian casualties, and extreme means withholding the full power of their military to the point that their own people's lives are placed in even greater danger. The cowards of Hamas know this, and use it to their advantage. There comes a point at which any sovereign government being attacked by terrorists must say "ENOUGH!", or be ready to forfeit their sovereignty. And, when it comes down to "fight or flight", the Israelis are totally unfamiliar with the "flight" portion.

Since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, there have been over 5,000 rocket and mortar attacks launched into Israel by Hamas, with the year 2008 accounting for a full 50% of those attacks. The time for ENOUGH has arrived, and Hamas is now paying the price for their continued terrorist aggression. I doubt that you'll see these statistics in the media - print or broadcast - so here they are:

image

(The spelling of "mortar" is not mine - it belongs to the Israeli government. I'm certain they can count much better than they spell in English! I can't do either in Hebrew.)

I could be wrong about this ... but I'm NOT!