The Right State

Japan is a country which has not yet come to terms with World War II.  The atrocities committed by the Imperial Army in the name of the motherland have not been fully explored nor even accepted by the Japanese people.  Their expansion into China, Korea and much of the Far East caught the ever watchful eyes of the civilized world and demanded they stop incursions.  It was the actions of the US to pressure Japan into relinquishing their hold on China which led to their attack on Pearl Harbor.  In the end Japan’s refusal to end the war even though they were loosing led to the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.  Afterwards the Japanese people tended to reject militarism on any scale.  The very idea of possessing weapons of mass destruction was an anathema to the Japanese culture.  Even their constitution inaugurated a new era of pacifism which was codified in article 9 and continues to this day.

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. 2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

After WWII and Japan turned away from war and militarism, they aspired to be pacifists and threw off the vestiges of the nationalism, imperialism, and patriotism which led to decades of conflict ranging from WWI through WWII.  Instead of having a military capable of projecting power, Japan instituted a national self-defense force for their protection.  Gone was any idea of militarization.

According to Japanese security policy, maintaining a military establishment is only one method — and by no means the best method — to achieve national security. Diplomacy, economic aid and development, and a close relationship with the United States under the terms of the 1960 security treaty are all considered more important. Japan is keeping military expenditure at only 1% of GDP, even though this is still a very significant amount. Japan’s posture is a defensive one, with no weapons of mass destruction, no long-range bombers, no middle or long-range missiles, no aircraft carriers and no nuclear submarines. But Japan has considerable conventional weapons, and wants to use its Self-Defence Forces for peacekeeping operations. Japan is however very concerned over the military build-up in East Asia.

During the Cold War, Japan lived under the protection of America’s nuclear umbrella.  They were content to let America protect them even though US presidents urged a more robust military to help with their protection.  Japan never really felt threatened by the USSR.  But with the militarization of China and nuclearization of North Korea, Japan apparently feels threatened.  For the first time since the end of WWII, Japan will once again bolster military spending.  Along with that is a call for patriotism.

Japan’s conservative government chipped away at two pillars of the country’s postwar pacifism, requiring schools to teach patriotism and upgrading the Defense Agency to a full ministry for the first time since World War II.

The measures, enacted Friday in a vote by Parliament’s upper house, form key elements of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s push to bolster Japan’s international military role, build up national pride and distance the country from its post-1945 war guilt.

Today, Japan is the fifth largest military spender only behind the United States, China, Russia, and France.  In 2005 they spent $45 billion the military, but the Japanese are sure to spend more.  As China’s growing military strength begins to threaten the Pacific Rim, North Korea’s insistence on nuclear weapons, and the US forces stretched with troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, Japan can no longer afford to be passive about their security.

The Japanese people have been a strong and reliable partner of the United States.  Their democracies work together economically, militarily, and politically.  Japan is a good ally of the United States.  A strong Japan with a viable military could not do anything but help the US as the Pacific Rim becomes more unstable.

Tags: Democracy, History by Chuck
No Comments »

It has been long suspected that ex-KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko had been poisoned by the Kremlin because of his harsh criticism of Russian President Vladimir Putin.  Now it turns out those who suspected foul play may have been right after all.

A rare radioactive substance killed an ex-KGB spy turned Kremlin critic, the British government said Friday. In a dramatic statement written before he died, the man called Russian President Vladimir Putin “barbaric and ruthless” and blamed him personally for the poisoning. (snip)

Litvinenko died late Thursday at a London hospital after spending days in intensive care as doctors puzzled over what was causing his organs to fail and attacking his bone marrow and destroying his immune system.

Britain’s Health Protection Agency said Friday that the radioactive element polonium-210 had been found in his urine, and the police said traces of radiation were found at Litvinenko’s home and a ritzy hotel bar and sushi restaurant he visited on the day he became ill.

Police said they were treating the case as an “unexplained death” – but not yet as a murder.

The 43-year-old Litvinenko, who fiercely criticized Putin’s government from his refuge in London since 2000, told police he believed he was poisoned Nov. 1 while investigating the October slaying of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, another critic of Putin.

Russian critics of Putin seem to die under the most suspicious circumstances.  It is not like Litvinenko slipped on a wet floor and feel on his table knife.  Instead he died of radiation poisoning.  The fact that he died of radiation poisoning should scare anyone, but since the source was a very rare substance should be especially scary.  According to Wikopedia, polonium is so rare that only about 100 grams is produced each year.

Polonium is not one of those extremely dangerous elements like plutonium which releases neutrons, yet it can be absorbed through the skin making the hazardous element difficult to handle.  Instead it releases alpha particles which are easily stopped by the paper or even the skin.  But once ingested in some way, polonium becomes extremely deadly as a dose of 0.12 micrograms (0.000000000264554715 pounds) is deadly to a human.

The rarity of polonium makes the Kremlin a prime suspect for this assassination and by extension, Vladimir Putin since he is the president and a former leader of the KGB.  Everyone who is critical of Putin’s leadership ends up with a severe case of death.  Democracy itself may become a future target of the Russian President.

This poisoning was intended to both kill the intended target and send a message to all other Russian critics they too can be reached.  Assassination can be achieved in a variety of ways, but to kill in this way sends a message loud and clear to every other critic of Vladimir Putin.

Tags: Democracy by Chuck
No Comments »

Its crunch time.  After today we will know how the nation’s capitol will move forward on the war on terror, taxes, and family values.  Ask the Republicans and they will tell you we need to stay in Iraq to keep America safe, low taxes to keep America’s economy chugging along, and a return to family values with issues like abortion and gay marriage.  Ask the Democrats and you might get an answers like: we need to withdraw from Iraq now, raise taxes on the rich, and have ‘reproductive choice.’  This difference is between staying the course and change.  Understanding the what this election is all about is essential—something with which the American people have been lax.

But there are indications that the American people are waking up to the realities of a Democratic win.  By Nancy Pelosi’s own admittion,  a Democratic win would mean raising taxes, a pull back from Iraq, abortion on demand, legalized gay marriage, and raising the minimum wage.  This would mean Nancy Pelosi would be speaker of the House and third in line to the presidency in the case of a disaster.  The question is—can our country survive under the leadership of a bunch of liberal Democrats?  As the election has gotten closer, the American people are beginning to back off supporting such a liberal agenda.  After all, these are the same people who do not support our troops.

Now even the New York Times is beginning to warn their fellow Democrats (the Times is very liberal and has not endorsed a single Republican candidate this election) not to expect too much from this election.

In most midterm elections, an out-of-power party picking up, say, 14 seats in the House and five seats in the Senate could call it a pretty good night.

But for Democrats in 2006, that showing would mean coming up one seat shy of taking control of both the Senate and the House. And it would probably be branded a loss — in the case of the House, a big one.

For a combination of reasons — increasingly bullish prognostications by independent handicappers, galloping optimism by Democratic leaders and bloggers, and polls that promise a Democratic blowout — expectations for the party have soared into the stratosphere. Democrats are widely expected to take the House, and by a significant margin, and perhaps the Senate as well, while capturing a majority of governorships and legislatures.

These expectations may well be overheated. Polls over the weekend suggested that the contest was tightening, and some prognosticators on Monday were scaling back their predictions, if ever so slightly. (Charlie Cook, the analyst who is one of Washington’s chief setters of expectations, said in an e-mail message on Monday that he was dropping the words “possibly more” from his House prediction of “20-35, possibly more.”)

Some Democrats worry that those forecasts, accurate or not, may be setting the stage for a demoralizing election night, and one with lasting ramifications, sapping the party’s spirit and energy heading into the 2008 presidential election cycle.  (emphasis added by TRS)

This is like saying, ‘I thing we will win and win big, but there is a chance things may not work in our favor.  So be ready.’  I have been saying for some time that the Democrats have been counting their wins before the voters go to the polls.  When push come to shove, the American people understand their pocketbooks and their way of life is under fire from the Democrats.  No wonder the Democrats are beginning to worry.

Hopefully the American people have waked up.  Republicans may not be happy with some of their representatives in Washington, but at the same time they understand that a Democratic win will not be good for the country.  Democrats may hate George W. Bush, but it is harder to vote against a candidate than for one.

This election is extremely important.  It comes down to whether to vote for higher taxes or lower taxes, abortion on demand or support life, cut-and-run from Iraq or defeat the terrorists while away from America, let the terrorists do what they will or to listen to their phone calls, let the UN run America or let us run ourselves, open borders or protect our borders, blame America or support America, call our troops terrorists and stupid and murderers or support our troops, and do what ever you want or a return to family values.  In all cases the former are the Democrats while the later are the Republicans.

There are very good reasons to support Republican Party candidates this election and making sure you vote for them is paramount to keeping America safe and prosperous.

Tags: Democracy, National Elections by Chuck
No Comments »

I am keeping this post near the top of the blog until after the election.

For 230 years America has struggled with this experiment called democracy. Right now we are standing at the cross-roads of two competing ideas of what is best for America. The 2006 midterm election is almost upon us and we have a choice between turning left and turning right. Turn left and we usher in a new era of tax increases, a slowing economy, withdrawing from the Middle East, a return to big government and the growth of terrorism around the world. Turn right and the country continues down the path of economic growth, family values and perhaps an end to terrorism.

What bothers me are the views of everyday Americans heading into this election. They are so distracted by everyday event and life that they do not have time for politics. People wake up in the morning, go to work, and then vote if they have time and if it allows them to get home in time to watch their favorite television program. By-in-large most Americans do not even know for whom they are voting for or why. Name recognition becomes the key to winning an election. We as a country have lost our roots. In the last presidential election, only 55% of the voting age population even bothered to vote. What a disgrace! Voting is how we as the electorate hold our politicians accountable. Voting is one way we maintain our democracy—our freedom.

David Gerrold offered what I believe is the best definition of freedom I have ever heard. In his book, A Matter for Men, he defined freedom as ‘being allowed the opportunity to be responsible for your own actions.’ This country was founded on the idea of liberty. But liberty comes at a price. It must be maintained or else it fades into oblivion. Wendell Phillips wrote that the ‘eternal vigilance is price of liberty.’ The people of this country have the right to vote and they have an obligation to vote. But voting requires that people have a responsibility to know for whom and why they are voting. Most people do not know the candidates or the issues. People no longer have time to investigate the candidates. Many people learn about a candidate from thirty minutes of news and so knowledge of the candidates takes the form of sound-bites and slogans. Candidates will often besmear each other in order to win the sound-bite war. But sound-bites tell very little if anything of the views of each candidate.

The MSM has entered into the fray. They are no longer content with just telling the news, they now see themselves as the final arbiters—choosing the winners and loser of each election. They see themselves as the protectors of liberty, but only those provisions given in the constitution with which they agree. Therefore, for the MSM, their coverage is neither objective nor balanced.

Institutions once seen as vital to the survival of America have come under attack. Religious freedoms are no longer protected at work, or school, and particularly not at city hall. Even celebrating Christmas has come under fire. Our military as the protectors of this great country has become a bargaining chip for some of our Machiavellian politicians. Our heroes are called murderers and terrorists by politicians willing to use them for some perceived political advantage against their opponents. Our troops are often demeaned and called stupid and thugs by these same self-absorbed politicians.

The very foundations of the United States are under attack and yet people either stay home rather than vote or they cast uninformed vote. With information the American people could replace these renegade politicians and replace them with good people who see themselves as citizens first and politicians second. When it comes to voting, Americans are lazy. Voting requires action. Being informed takes initiative. These are two things when taken together add up to something many Americans have not had in many years—an informed vote.

We used to be a strong vibrant country based on God, on freedom, on individualism. People rallied to a cause and fought to the end. Wars were fought and won because the safety of America was at stake. Taxes were raised only during national emergencies. Politicians placed the benefit of America ahead of their own political ambitions. Today that has all changed. Wars and our soldiers have become political fodder in a battle for political supremacy. Reasons for going to war are being shortchanged for political convenience. Politicians use class warfare to raise taxes on the rich. And impeachment is being discussed not for high crimes, but to weaken a sitting President in time of war for political reasons. What ever happened to politicians who placed America first?

When Iraq became free of their brutal dictator, the Iraqi people flocked to the polls in numbers never seen in the US. They tasted freedom for the first time and liked it. They faced death in order to cast their vote in their very first election. If the roles were reversed, how many Americans would voluntarily face such dangers in order to vote?

Americans have lost their way. They have been led to believe that being a nobody is better than being a somebody, that easy is better than hard, that weak is better than strong, that poor is better than rich. We have been led to believe that all of the world’s problems stem from failures in US policy. There was an empire which thought this same thing, who thought than being entertained was better than doing something yourself, who became lazy because of her strength, and that empire was Rome. The Roman Empire rose and then fell not with a bang but a whimper. The United States is heading towards that same direction-towards disaster.

All hope is not lost. The Iraqi people flocked to the polls because they tasted freedom for the first time. For the first time they had the opportunity to be responsible for their own actions. What we need to do is to remember. Remember when this country was strong and we were proud of it. Remember when our military was an honored institution all across America. Remember when hard work was encouraged and rewarded. Remember when this country valued freedom. Remember when family values were the foundation of life. Remember when this country placed a high value on the character of their politicians. But if we do not start now, we may well run the risk of going from this city upon a hill as envisioned by Cotton Matther John Winthrop in 1630, to becoming a curse word among all the nations. If this country were to return to God, return to its values, return to its roots, we may not only survive, but become an inspiration again to the world. People immigrate to the country for a reason. It is still a beacon for the entire world to see, but for how much longer?

Irving Dillard once wrote: “

I often wonder whether we do no rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.

Liberty…its so hard to define and yet it is what everyone wants. Liberty begins and ends with responsibility. Knowing the candidates and knowing the political parties is paramount. Some people say there is no difference between the two parties, but this is the excuse of the uninformed. The difference between the two sides could not be more stark. One stands for freedom while the other stands for more government, one stands for the individual while the other stands for the group, one stands for strength while the other stands for weakness, one stands for God while the other stands for self, one stands for life while the other stands for ‘reproductive choice,’ one stands for strength while the other stands for weakness. In each case, the former is the Republican Party while the latter is the Democratic Party. This is of course a generalization. There are some in each party I like and don’t like. I would vote for Democrat Zell Miller in almost any election and over most Republicans. At the same time I would vote for Mickey Mouse before I would Democrat Nancy Pelosi. I would not vote for Republican Lincoln Chaffee even if he was running unopposed. That is where knowing the candidates come in.

This country has gotten lazy. We have had democracy for 230 years, we have fought and won two world wars, we have fought and won against the spread of communism, and we have the most powerful military and economy the world has ever seen. We think that just because the US is so rich and powerful, we will always remain powerful. And because we have gotten lazy, there are some devious politicians who would take advantage of that fact. They are counting on the electorate being uniformed.

America is standing at the crossroads. We have two distinct choices in the midterm election—left or right. The Democrats have already told us which direction they would take this country. They would raise taxes, they would raise the minimum wage, they would pull out of Iraq leaving the US defenseless against terrorism, and they would start proceedings against George W. Bush because of our involvement in Iraq. The Democrats will do anything to win this election including using our troops as pawns in their struggle for political power, including generating class warfare and including harming America’s war effort against terrorism. The Republicans want to keep taxes low, they would raise the minimum wage only if it is tied to a tax relief for small business, they want to protect life, they want to protect family values and they want to keep America safe and strong. The differences between these two parties are as different as left is from right.

Tuesday will mark decision time for many in the US. People can either choose to go left or to go right. But in either case, the decision must be backed with knowledge. In this case an uninformed vote is actually worse than not voting at all. Now is the time for Americans to be responsible for our own actions. Now is time for Americans to exercise their freedom to vote. Just be sure to vote wisely.

Tags: Democracy, National Elections, Politics by Chuck
No Comments »

At one time John Murtha may have been a brave marine as he fought for his country . Now he is just one of a long list of whiney Democrats who run scared every time someone mentions the word: war. Well, Mr. Murtha sometimes war is necessary for the defense of this country in spite of your spin to the contrary.

I find it hypocritical and ironic that Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush, in their latest speeches to spin the war in Iraq, both commented that “many still have not learned history lessons,” as they drew inflammatory parallels between Nazism and today’s war in Iraq designed only to provoke unreasonable fear in the hearts of Americans.

Clearly it was the ignoring of history that got President Bush and his ideological policymakers into the quagmire that now exists in Iraq. As history dictated, it was absolutely foolish to believe that by occupying Iraq, the United States would transform the country into a beacon of American style democratic ideals. The British failed in its occupation attempts during the early 1900s. You only have to press rewind to hear the now haunting yet familiar words of a British Commander in Baghdad in 1917 say, “Our armies do not come in to your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.” After a decade of fighting with the population they had forcibly “liberated,” the British were finally expelled from what is today Iraq by a population who resented foreign occupation and control.

President George Herbert Walker Bush was obviously more astute than his son when it came to the learning of History lessons. During the first Gulf War he rejected the urging of many to march into Baghdad, fully understanding the complexities and pitfalls of such an act. President GW Bush should have spent a little more time under the tutelage of his much more insightful father.

Obviously the former marine needs to spend a little more time talking to the commanders in the field and the soldiers on the ground. They tell a different story, one in which most of the Iraqi people welcome the United States as liberators. Sure there are areas where troublemakers continue to undermine our efforts, but the people have tasted freedom and they like it. As the Prime Minister said, “Iraqis have tasted freedom and they will defend it.”

Anyone can take a few footnotes in history and twist them around to show that something will not work. I can take a few moments in history and show the United States should not be a democracy. Take for example the Whiskey Rebellion or perhaps even the Articles of Confederation. Finding examples and twisting them is easy. The hard part comes in defending your beliefs as our soldiers have done, as the Iraqi people have done. The Iraqi people have tasted freedom for the first time. They have voted for their own representatives, for the first time. They have a written constitution which guarantees individual rights, for the first time. To think that the people would voluntarily move away from these freedoms and towards some sort of Taliban like government is incredibly short-sighted. But then it seems many lily-livered Democrats are short-sighted. People like you say no war is worth fighting. People like you say no American blood worth shedding for liberty. Thank God this country still has people who are willing to give their all for this great country.

It is a shame your constituents do not know more about your views. If they knew some of the things you have done, like calling our soldiers murderers, they would most likely not re-elect you for another term. It is veterans like you who give veterans like me a bad name.

Update:  I saw this post and had to include it.  Apparently I am not the only one who does not think much of this Murtha guy, Common Man/Uncommon Sense has a post showing how this former marine is lost, truly lost.

Anybody who supports this guy has no business calling Bush dumb. (snip)

As a current conservative supporter I want all those that I could support held to a high standard. And even though Benedict Arnold was a Revolutionary War officer and hero, it is no compliment today to be called a Benedict Arnold. And it is no honor to be called a John Murtha. We appreciate your service and respect you for it but it doesn’t give you a get out of jail free card. I’m not voting for someone who couldn’t beat Forrest Gump at checkers.

Ouch!  I never thought much of Murtha, but after reading this post, I think even less of him now.

Tags: Democrats, Democracy, History, President Bush, Politics, Iraq, War by Chuck
No Comments »

Victor Davis Hanson has gotten the history of Europe right; they have always backed down before tyrants and dictators.  He compares that bygone era with how the Europeans are treating terrorism.  When the going got tough……., Europe caves in. Be sure to read the rest of the article.  Here is just a little bit.

Our present generation too is on the brink of moral insanity. That has never been more evident than in the last three weeks, as the West has proven utterly unable to distinguish between an attacked democracy that seeks to strike back at terrorist combatants, and terrorist aggressors who seek to kill civilians.

Haven’t we learned anything in the five years since al Qaeda attacked the US on 9/11?  Since the attacks, we have been battling terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Terrorists have attacked in England, Spain, India, Russia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and others.  And still, western countries refuse to call Hezbollah a terrorist organization or confront terrorism in general.

In our own country the cut-and-run Democrats have not learned anything either.

And finally examine here at home reaction to Hezbollah — which has butchered Americans in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia — from a prominent Democratic Congressman, John Dingell: “I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah.” And isn’t that the point, after all: the amoral Westerner cannot exercise moral judgment because he no longer has any?

I guess the moral of the story is that a liberal is a liberal, no matter what country they are from.  None of them seem to be able to confront terrorism, none support war even as a last resort, and they continue to make excuses for those who wish to destroy our freedoms, whether in the past or now.

In short, if we wish to learn what was going on in Europe in 1938, just look around.

Isn’t that the truth.

Hat tip: BlackFive

Tags: Terrorism, Democracy, History, War by Chuck
No Comments »

This op-ed from the Jerusalem Post very articulately nails down why the UN and some in the west see the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in different way.  The difference can be likened to whether each side is playing by a particular set of previously agreed upon rules, or if the conflict is a matter of life or death with the rules thrown out the window.

Strategic interactions are of two main types. They either resemble a “game,” with each side making moves according to tacitly agreed evolving rules, or constitute a life-or-death “kill or be killed” conflict.

Thus, the cold war evolved rapidly into a “game,” with the exception of the Cuba missile crisis, when extreme American measures were necessary to reestablish relatively stable rules of interaction.

In contrast, the confrontation with Hitler was of the life-or-death type. The Western misreading of Hitler as a rule-following player - or at least as amenable to becoming such a player after “reasonable demands” were satisfied - resulted in very high costs. (snip)

Contemporary Western values, culture, economies, and politics are dense with factors that distort reality, making this critical task more difficult. Among these are the ill-founded beliefs that human beings are sure to prefer liberal democracy given a real choice, and that material interests necessarily reduce fanaticism.

Other Western handicaps are the lack of readiness to kill and be killed, even when doing so will likely to save many lives in the future; an unwarranted trust in partly outdated rules of international law; striving for so wide a consensus as to make effective action impossible; and worrying about energy sources and markets.

Some learning from mistakes does take place, especially in the US and England, though it happens the hard way - being hit by terrorism and facing obviously “evil” states. Still, the dominant trend, especially in Europe, is to cling to optimistic images of reality approximating the game model, despite stubborn facts to the contrary.

So when Hezbollah attacked, the Israeli response was considered an over-reaction and not proportionate.  The same things were said when the US entered Afghanistan, after all, we only lost 3000 people.  The US and Great Britain are just about the only countries to know civilization is in a life or death struggle with radical Islam.

ISRAEL, however, cannot permit itself such a short-sighted path of action. Hizbullah and Hamas, as supported by Syria and Iran, are life-or-death enemies likely, with time, to become more dangerous rather than to lose their fanatical nature. Therefore, Israeli counteraction must achieve the destructive capacity necessary to drastically reduce the growing threat; and to motivate bystanders to act against the fanatics and deter their supporters.

In particular, in view of the declared nature of the present Iranian regime as a total enemy and its growing power, including emerging nuclear capabilities, Israel must build (to be more exact, rebuild) credible deterrence, based in part on “rationality irrationality.” This requires a partial image of willingness and capacity to react unpredictably and with extreme violence to life-and-death dangers, even at high costs to itself. (emphasis added by TRS)

Harsh measures against Hizbullah and Hamas are a way to build such an image, in addition to being justified in themselves - all the more so as Hizbullah’s initial attack was probably designed to test Israeli determination.

IN MORAL terms, Israel confronts the tragic choice of either engaging now in a large-scale action, despite significant human costs, or wait until a much more costly war becomes unavoidable.

You can bet if Israel does not confront Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, and Syria now, they will have to do so later at a much higher cost in terms of lives lost.  Israel understands the dangers of radical Islam, for the most part the US understands too.  Most of Europe does not understand.  Of course they come by this honestly.  Even with the dangers of WWII looming, the leaders sought to appease Hitler.  It was not until he had conquered a good portion of Europe that they finally understood the danger this madman represented.  Europe has a history of appeasement, and in WWII it almost cost them their freedom.  And now they do not understand the danger radical Islam represents to a free world.  In the end it may be the United States who pulls the world’s chestnuts out of the fire once again.

Tags: Democracy, Iran, President Bush, War by Chuck
No Comments »

I do not know how the US could handle the situation in Lebanon any better.  Rice has flown to Beirut in support of the fledgling government and has been encouraging Syria to stop supporting Hezbollah through the influence of moderate Muslim states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made an unannounced visit to Beirut on Monday in a show of support for that country’s weakened democracy, which is struggling to contain the fighting between the Hezbollah militia and Israel.

Rice planned to meet with Lebanese Prime Minister Faud Saniora, other leaders of his government and members of parliament about the surge in fighting along the southern border in the last two weeks.

Her visit is intended to make a show of support and concern for both the Saniora government and the Lebanese people, administration officials said. She also plans to talk with Lebanese leaders about how the central government can gain control of the entire country.

And that is the real problem; the government of Lebanon is too weak to exert control over their entire country allowing terrorist groups like Hezbollah to operate as a quasi-autonomous government in the southern region.  Exploiting this weakness, Hezbollah, until recently, has attacked Israel with impunity.

With the IDF attacking into Lebanon to go after the terrorists, Condoleezza Rice is reluctant to call a halt to hostilities.  After all, for the last couple of years the US and Great Britain have been the only countries to really go after the terrorists.  So Rice has to play a balancing act of allowing Israel to proceed as long as they do not undermine the pro-west government of Lebanon.

At the same time the Bush administration is working to detach Syria from its ally Iran.  I am not sure if this is more of a move to separate and conquer or if its main purpose is to further isolate Iran.  Either way, we have some of the more moderate Muslim countries helping us out.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia are working to entice Syria to end support for Hezbollah, a move that is central to resolving the conflict in Lebanon and unhitching Damascus from its alliance with Iran, the Shiite Muslim guerrillas’ other main backer.

Arab diplomats in Cairo said the United States had signaled a willingness to re-engage Syria through Washington’s encouragement of the Egyptians and Saudis to lean on Damascus to stop backing Hezbollah.

With Jordan, Egypt, and Israel all confirming the existence of Iranian troops in southern Lebanon, it seems likely Washington is trying to isolate the Islamic regime, probably saving them to deal with later. 

The bodies of Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers who were killed by the Israeli army in Lebanon have been transported to Syria and flown to Tehran, senior Lebanese political sources told WorldNetDaily.

The information was confirmed by Israeli and Egyptian security officials. It follows scores of reports the past few days Iranian soldiers have been aiding Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon in their attacks against Israel, including help with the firing of rockets into Israeli population centers.  (snip)

Jordanian officials told WND they are “100 percent sure” Iranian Revolutionary Guard unit soldiers have fired rockets into Israel. They also said the Syrian army has provided Hezbollah with intelligence information on the locations of strategic Israeli targets to aid in Hezbollah rocket fire.

Any evidence of foreign interference by Iran and Syria should be displayed for all to see.  Syria could possibly come clean by ending their relationship with Iran.  As the smaller partner, President Bashar al-Assad can claim he sent help to Hezbollah at the request of Iran.  Iran on the other hand is a different matter.  The ruling mullahs believe they are supposed to export the Islamic Revolution.  Until the people of Iran rise up against the autocracy, not much will change.  The country will continue to support Hezbollah and other terrorist groups until a regime change occurs.

By sending Sec. Rice to Lebanon now, President Bush can exploit this window of opportunity to show the US wants peace in the region while giving Israel enough time to wipe out as many of the terrorists as they can.  Furthermore the trip can demonstrate to the Lebanese government that we still support them.  Either way, I see this trip as a win-win for the US.

Tags: Democracy, Iran, President Bush, Politics, War by Chuck
No Comments »

The people of Iran sometimes act like someone who just bought a car from a used car salesman.  When they wake up in the morning to view the new car and it turns out they had not bought was what they were promised.  During the 1979 Iranian revolution which overthrew the Shah of Iran, the people wanted and demanded more rights and a democratically elected government.  Since then, the run of the mill people of Iran are not very satisfied with what was become of those promises.  For the last few years, the mullahs have kept an ever watchful eye on everyday Iranians and with good reason.  The people still want more rights, not a more restrictive theocracy.

With the turmoil in Lebanon, you would think the Iranians would want to do anything they can to help their Islamic brethren.  Not so.  It turns out most of the Iranian people want their money to stay in Iran to take care of Iranian problems.

There is a huge amount of anger here about what is happening in Lebanon, but it is not all the result of Israeli bombs, missiles and artillery.

“Of course I am angry,’’ said Hamid Akbari, 30, a deliveryman. “All our income is going to Palestine and Hezbollah.”

For decades, Iran has been Hezbollah’s prime patron, helping create it as a Shiite Muslim militia and then nurture it with money, expertise and weapons. But now that Hezbollah is in the midst of full-blown fighting with Israel, Iranian officials have been adamant in insisting that they had nothing to do with the events that set off the crisis. (snip)

In interviews in central Tehran Saturday, person after person said the same thing: Iran should worry about Iran’s problems and not be dragged down by others’ battles.

“We Iranians have a saying,” said Ali Reza Moradi, 35, a portrait artist who works in a small booth downtown. “We should save our own house first and then save the mosque. A lot of people think this way. The government should help its people first, and then help the people in Lebanon.”

Maybe some of the anger in Iran will be directed not at Israel, but on the ruling mullahs who continuously defy the west with its nuclear program and its support of terrorist groups.  Iran can not hope to match the US dollar for dollar in this crisis.  As Iran sends more of their hard earned money into this conflict, the anger towards the Iranian government will likely grow.  I hope this is the beginning of the end for the Islamic theocracy in Iran.

Tags: Democracy, Iran, War by Chuck
No Comments »

England marked the anniversary of the 7/7 attacks with two minutes of silence.  Only problem is countries like Great Britain have been silent for way too long.  People in the US had to deal with 9/11.  Australia had the Bali bombings.  On and on I could go.  There is one, I repeat one, common denominator in all these attacks: the perpetrators were all Muslim extremists.

Britain had dealt with Irish Republican Army attacks for decades and had endured the bombing of a U.S. airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 that killed 270 people. But last summer’s bombings plunged Britons into the new era of terrorism that began with the Sept. 11 attacks — an act that had led Britain to become the strongest ally in the U.S.-led fight against terror.

Britain also was forced to examine the implications of its multiculturalism: All four suicide bombers were young British Muslims — three born in Britain of Pakistani origin and one a Jamaica-born convert who grew up in central England.

One of the London bombers was shown in a video released Friday on the Internet, saying that non-Muslims in Britain had declared war on Islam.

Terrorism committed in the name of Islam has led many to wonder whether, in the post-Cold War era, the world is gripped by another clash of civilizations — one in which the values of Western liberal democracies are in irreconcilable conflict with those of Muslims, whose numbers are growing across Europe.

We are in a war of survival for our nation and our way of life.  If these people had their way, sharia law would be instituted immediately.  Then we could forget about freedom of religion, there would only be one religion—Islam.  We could forget about freedom of the press, Imams would determine what was worthy of print.  You could forget about a fair trial, the Second Amendment, and all the other rights we hold so dear.  They will be a thing of history and soon forgotten since historians could only study Islam.

What do Muslims who are enjoying the freedoms of Great Britain have to think?  Take a look at this.  After the 7/7 bombings, a significant percentage of the Muslims living in Great Britain feel the terrorist acts were justified.

Just in time for the one-year anniversary of 7/7, a poll conducted for The Times of London indicates that 13 percent of British Muslims believe that the four Islamic suicide bombers who murdered 52 people in London last July should be regarded as “martyrs.”

With a Muslim population in Britain estimated at 1.6 million, this means that some 208,000 British Muslims regard these killers with what can only be described as a worshipful attitude, which is despicable. But Mother England, it seems, is home to an awful lot of despicable people.

England will not get serious about those who espouse violence.  Take for example a recent protest march by these same violence advocators who led a march to the Danish embassy in London carrying signs.

“Behead Those Who Insult Islam,” said one placard. “Slay Those Who Insult Islam,” said another. “Kill Those Who Insult Islam” and, for variety, “Butcher Those Who Mock Islam,” said others. Hundreds of demonstrators marched through London, praising the 7/7 killers or calling for the murder of journalists who publish Mohammed cartoons. And the police stood by.

More accurately, they [the London Police] made sure the protest went off smoothly, as the Times Online reported. “People who tried to snatch away [the placards] were held back by police,” the newspaper reported. “Several members of the public tackled senior police officers guarding the protesters, demanding to know why they allowed banners that praised the ‘Magnificent 19′ — the terrorists who hijacked the aircrafts used on September 11, 2001 — and others threatening further attacks on London.”

And to believe there are people on the left who advocate the position that the US is the greatest threat to peace and world stability in the world.  These people with the tin hats had better realize real quick who the enemy really is.  While I fault the extremist Islamists for the terrorist acts, I also fault those on the left who fail to realize we as a nation are in extreme danger due to the terrorists.  As more and more Muslims stream into our country so do those who would love to see the US crippled.  These extremists will just as readily saw off the head of a flower carrying liberal as they would an American soldier.

Make no mistake about it, we are at war.  Those who advocate violence need to be jailed if they are an American citizen or deported if they are not.  Either way, we must start protecting ourselves against extreme Islam.  Otherwise this country may be unrecognizable in the few short years it takes to institute sharia law.

Tags: Democracy, Moonbats, Immigration, War by Chuck
No Comments »