I felt like this back in the days when the Watergate scandal slowly, painfully unraveled, revealing the most appalling stupidity and criminality emanating from the Oval Office. From the night when the burglars were arrested in the Democrat Committee headquarters on June 17, 1972 to the [...]]]> NASA’s Mission to the Muslims

By Alan Caruba

I felt like this back in the days when the Watergate scandal slowly, painfully unraveled, revealing the most appalling stupidity and criminality emanating from the Oval Office. From the night when the burglars were arrested in the Democrat Committee headquarters on June 17, 1972 to the day Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974, Americans were forced to witness and endure something unthinkable.

The news that NASA administrator, Charles Bolden, had been dispatched to the Middle East to fulfill what he said was its “foremost” mission, “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science…and math and engineering” was so appallingly stupid that it defied any legitimate reason for NASA to exist.

The other mission objectives Barack Obama charged Bolden with were to “re-inspire children to want to get into science and math” and to “expand our international relationships.”

You need a bit of history to lend some clarity to this. NASA was the direct result of the Cold War scare when the Russians put Sputnik into orbit over the Earth in October 1957, thereby demonstrating they had missiles powerful enough to launch a nuclear attack on the nation. It galvanized the U.S. government into passing the National Defense Education Act in order to get more young Americans to go into the fields of science and math, and it prompted the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the purpose of demonstrating American scientists and engineers could create bigger and better missiles.

Muslims had nothing to do with it then and nothing to do with it now.

In February, President Obama proposed that NASA abandon its Constellation program. As the New York Times reported at the time, it would involve abandoning “the rockets and spacecraft that NASA has been working on for the past four years to replace space shuttles.” It would impose a mandate “that any future exploration program will be an international collaboration”, not an American one.

NASA made news again in mid-June when it was announced that Obama’s amended budget request would slash $100 million from its operating funds in order to “spur economic growth and job creation along Florida’s Space Coast and other affected regions.” According to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, this somehow “revitalizes NASA and transitions to new opportunities in the space industry and beyond.” How many NASA engineers and scientists will now transition to jobs at Disneyworld?

Islam has not been “hijacked” by the likes of Osama bin Laden. Islam has always been about the conquest of the world and its greatest “scientific” breakthroughs since the 1980s have been the development of truck bombs and suicide bombers who have attacked targets from Bali to London, Madrid to Manhattan.

Obama’s Cairo speech on June 4, 2009 was filled with the kind of lies that portray Islam as a peaceful religion and one responsible for all manner of scientific breakthroughs from the invention of the magnetic compass to the printing of books.

Neither is true. What is true is that the Chinese had developed the compass and Islam had resisted printing books for a thousand years following its rise after 632AD.

Those under the oppression of Islam did not contribute to or experience the rise of science and the arts as both were rejected as un-Islamic. Many forms of music, for example, were banned in Islam. While the West was producing Galileo, Isaac Newton, Nicolaus Copernicus, Aristotle, Rene Descartes and Albert Einstein, not one single scholar of comparable stature was produced in the Islamic world.

Contrary to Obama’s mission to reach out to Muslims, they “reached out” to the West and, in America on September 11, 2001, destroyed the Twin Towers and attacked the Pentagon, killing some 3,000 victims.

Typical of the arrogance of Islam is the proposal to build a mosque within a block of ground zero in New York City!

Building mosques over sites held sacred to non-Muslims is an long tradition of Islam, from the mosque built over the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, to the countless other mosques in converted Christian churches, Buddhist and Hindu temples, as a demonstration of their intention to replace Western and Asian religions.

Permitting the building of the proposed New York mosque would signal submission to Islam.

Perverting and defunding NASA’s mission is evidence of Obama’s commitment to Islam.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

Photo by Caitlin Murray

When you think of Argentina and its sporting tradition, you think football, Maradona and the hand of God. You may also wonder how the country managed to churn out such good polo teams. You [...]]]> by: Paul Finnerty | 03 April 2009
printed in: Edition 51 | section: Sport

Photo by Caitlin Murray

When you think of Argentina and its sporting tradition, you think football, Maradona and the hand of God. You may also wonder how the country managed to churn out such good polo teams. You are rather mystified at being told that the national sport is pato, which used to be played with an actual duck’s head.

However, something new is emerging on the Argentine horizon. The Shankees have come to town, and brought with them that famous old US sport, baseball.

“In November 2008, I figured that I wanted to put a baseball team together. And then abracadabra, the rest is history,” says Paul Perry, founder and coach of the team.

“It was easy to get started. It was serendipity. You have to move on an idea quick. I had already tried putting a football team together called the Wild Turkeys and I even bought a turkey suit. It’s harder to get footballers though, because its rougher and you can get injured.”

It seems that Paul has reignited a lot of the players’ enthusiasm for baseball. The majority played in the US, some of them picking up their gloves for the first time since their Little League days.

The team is mostly made up of Americans. The exception is an Argentine, Rodrigo Castelli, a 34-year-old managing director from Villa Urquiza. “It’s good to be accepted by the guys,” he reveals. “When I was ten I went to the US. I played baseball for seven years, but then didn’t play for a further 15.”

The truth is that Rodrigo is quite an exception to the rule. There are several established teams on the Argentine baseball circuit, but it is a long way from being professional. It is difficult to generate interest in the sport, especially amongst the fans.

One of the six fans in attendance, Martin Vilte, 36, a professional from Recoleta, gave an insight into why the stands are not packed full of supporters.

“For me it’s a good sport, but a lot of Argentines think of baseball as a very foreign sport. It’s complicated and they don’t understand the rules.”

Another important factor is where the games are played. The Shankees were scheduled to play a friendly game against Cuba in the National Baseball Stadium. It is quite out of the way, near Ezeiza airport. The team seems to think is that if there was a way to transport the fans out there, it would be more popular.

Unfortunately, they were informed on the day that the stadium was undergoing maintenance. The game was instead played on a nearby field, but Paul insists that the actual playing is what counts.

Photo by Randall Bass

“It could have been worse. It could have rained,” he laughs. “It’s about bringing something to their lives. It’s not about balls, it’s about moments. They’ll always remember the Buenos Aires baseball experience. It’s baseball in ‘bizarro’ world.”

And bizarre it is. The Shankees claim that the Cubans drink rum in between innings. One of them would have been more appropriate in a fashion show. Despite his sunglasses, slicked back hair and very fashionable, tight blue vest, his pitching led the Cubans to a 9-5 victory. They celebrated with more rum, and pumped out some reggaeton tunes to rub salt in the wound.

Paul was not happy, and alleged that the Cubans had changed their batting order, which is considered cheating. On top of that, the catching equipment arrived late, meaning only five innings were played.

Fortunately for him, that game was just a friendly. Since then, the Shankees have participated in a pre-season tournament. They won four and lost one game, and will head into the national league in fine form. Paul and his troops will fight it out in the second division with five other teams, competing to win promotion to the top league. The season began on 28th March and will last for approximately three months.

“We train when we play,” he admits. “There are decent teams out there like Velez, La Plata and Lanús. But we don’t have the discipline to practise. It’s a miracle to have all 12 here, given that they all go out partying on Friday.”

The baseball is not just restricted to Saturday afternoons. Several of the players are coaches at local schools. Rodrigo met Paul in this way. He believes that there is a lot of potential with youth baseball.

Matteo Doskis, born in the US, but now resident in Buenos Aires, agrees. “There’s a minor league with loads of kids involved. We have a project in a villa near Parque Roca. It’s linked with the Little League in the US. They play with a lot of enthusiasm. It’s a weekend thing for them. Families get there before I do!”

Photo by Caitlin Murray

The Shankees are always on the lookout for new players.

“The team is all from the US,” jokes Paul. “You need a passport to play. But we accept hybrids. If you want to play, contact us. Come and have a game and we’ll go from there.”

That the team has come together in such a short space of time is impressive. “It’s surreal,” he says. “I want to write a screenplay. It’ll make a good movie.”

Anybody interested in playing or watching baseball can visit the website www.shankeesbaseball.com or contact Paul Perry at shankeesbaseball@hotmail.com.

In “Act of Creation”, a 2003 book by Stephen C. Schlesinger tells the story of how the United Nations was established.. At one point he writes that “The first person of any importance noted was Alger Hiss, the acting secretary general of the United Nations, originally appointed [...]]]> The UN’s New Scams

By Alan Caruba

In “Act of Creation”, a 2003 book by Stephen C. Schlesinger tells the story of how the United Nations was established.. At one point he writes that “The first person of any importance noted was Alger Hiss, the acting secretary general of the United Nations, originally appointed to that post on the recommendation of President Roosevelt and Secretary Stetinius.”

Hiss would later be revealed to be a communist agent of the Soviet Union, one of many in the Roosevelt administration. In 1950 Hiss went to jail for perjury, denying his guilt to the end.

All this and more became known with the publication of the Venona documents, a record of secret communications with Soviet spymasters that had been intercepted by U.S. counterintelligence during World War Two.

I cite this so you will understand that Roosevelt’s pet project, the founding of a new international organization, was largely shaped by communists within his administration. A previous effort, the League of Nations, advocated by President Woodrow Wilson after World War One, failed to deter World War Two.

The UN, through its International Atomic Energy Agency, has provided cover and time for Iran to create nuclear weapons, thus setting in motion a war that defies imagination.

A Global Government

Since its beginning, the United Nations has been all about establishing a global government. The inroads against individual national sovereignty have never ceased, pieced together in a fabric of international treaties that, in the case of the U.S., supercede our Constitution when signed.

Since its creation, it has vastly increased its authority through a whole series of agencies devoted to the environment, health, refugees, the seas, urbanization, and a host of other issues. A treaty about the world’s seas limits military action, mining rights, and other aspects of international law that Americans take for granted. It is waiting on approval in the U.S. Senate.

The U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty would nullify the Constitution’s Second Amendment right of citizens to bear arms while prohibiting firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public, any transfer of firearm ownership, and require U.S. citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government for collection and destruction.

In the last century governments worldwide have been responsible for the murder of an estimated 262 million of their citizens even when some had small arms. Most, however, were defenseless.

Most Americans are by now familiar with the UN’s Environmental Program that has been at the heart of the “global warming” hoax. It was based entirely on falsified computer models whose primary source was the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain and even U.S. government agencies such as NOAA.

In November 2009, thousands of leaked emails between the CRU and fellow conspirators in the U.S. revealed that they were doing everything in their power to prevent the release of their data bases while also denying the publication of data that debunked their machinations in formerly respected science journals.

Biodiversity, the New Scare

Seeing the collapse of “global warming” as an instrument to destroy industrialization by claiming the Earth was threatened by carbon dioxide emissions (a gas that is essential to the growth of all vegetation on the planet), the environmental conspirators in the UN have come up with a new global scare campaign; the claim that species and forests, et cetera, are disappearing so fast that the case for saving them is “more powerful than climate change.”

Elements of the UN report were made known on its annual International Day for Biodiversity in May. In a Washington Times commentary, E. Calvin Beisner identified this as a “familiar green tactic known as ‘science by press release.’” The thrust of this new global scam is an attack on the global economic system in order to put it under the control of the United Nations.

Get ready to hear from every direction that the rate of species extinction is now anywhere from one thousand to ten thousand times faster than ever before and, like “climate change” it is going to be blamed on human beings and their evil economic system. It will, of course, be based on computer models!

The United States has already fallen prey to the bogus “endangered species” racket, having passed a law in 1973 to protect them. Its true purpose is to stop any development, any agricultural activity, and any access to energy resources.

The Endangered Species Act is the reason the federal government now routinely shuts off irrigation water to farmers, ruining their farms and lives while driving up the cost of the crops they would otherwise be providing.

It is a splendid way for environmentalists to undermine the nation’s economy and security.

The United Nations has proven to be, not merely a huge failure regarding its mission to end war, but an international institution that has long since metastasized into a relentless quest for global government and, with it, the subjugation of humanity.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

After finishing a piece the other day on the apparent torpedoing of the south Korean cruiser, I began to try to find an answer for my own question.  Why would North Korea do that?

After just a little [...]]]>

We're here for the "guns for cheeseburgers" exchange!

North Korea – a call for help?

After finishing a piece the other day on the apparent torpedoing of the south Korean cruiser, I began to try to find an answer for my own question.  Why would North Korea do that?

After just a little reading I discovered that South Korea is the North’s biggest trading partner, to the tune of almost one and a half billion dollars a year.  I discovered that both Korea’s want to get back to being one country, although each on it’s own terms.  I also did some research into this very secretive country’s current state.

It’s not great.  After a decade of floods, droughts, failed farming practices and serious economic problems, they are doing better, but it’s still no garden spot.  For the last 20 years the US, South Korea and China have been pouring in aid.  Although the North Koreans stopped taking US aid in 2006, no doubt to teach us a good lesson, their other neighbors are still pouring it on.

Why is everyone doing that? Because even before they had the Bomb, they were refining nuclear material.  North Korea has a strong industrial capacity and great mineral wealth.  No one want either bombs or nuclear material up for sale, from a country that’s falling apart.  You can’t talk or deal effectively with an unstable state.

Not that North Korea isn’t selling nuclear technology and possibly nuclear material.  We know that had a reactor deal going with Syria, the Israelis bombed the hell out it of last year.  Those Israelis, always got their “naughty” on.

But that still leaves the question: Why torpedo one of your only trading partner’s cruiser?  The one who is trying to restrain other nations from taking an even stronger stand against you.  Were they just having a “Hey! Get off my lawn!” moment?

As it turns out no one knows much about what’s going on inside North Korea.  They don’t let anyone have Internet, or cell phones.  Radio and television are strictly state or party controlled and they do their best to jam any other broadcasts.  North Koreans can go to jail for receiving or sending any information  to or from an outside source.

The “good” guessers

However, there are some media analysts, scholars of North Korean studies, and intelligence experts (for all of the above think: good guessers) Who think this might mean something very bad.  It may well not have been a North Korean government action, some low level commander may have ordered it.

They have a million person army in North Korea, an army that depends on conflict and threat for it’s existence.   They are increasingly dependent on aid from China, the same China that counsels slow and thoughtful action.  Which is not uncharacteristic of the Chinese, “Slow and sure wins the race” is almost a Chinese maxim.

Of course it doesn’t hurt that the more time passes, the more China invests in North Korea and the more that country becomes dependent on them.  Reunification with South Korea probably isn’t very high on China’s list of priorities.

Let’s say you were a North Korean whose country had been cut in half for the last 50 years.  Your half is not so pleasant, kinda sucks really.  The other half, where some of your family still lives, has cell phones, the fastest internet on the planet and a booming economy (Plus good jobs and enough food).  Would you consider starting a war with them so you could loose?  Or would you rather be Chinese?

Copyright Prentiss Gray 2010

Prentiss Gray is a writer and columnist and currently writes the Domesti-Tech Blog for Gannett.  He can be reached through his website at www.prentissgray.com

Ever wonder what the North Koreans are thinking?  I do.  Here’s a country that has spent a huge portion of their tiny country’s income on developing nuclear weapons and a missile technology to deliver them, and they can’t feed their own people.  I guess they decided on guns over [...]]]>

Hey! Quit oppressing me!

Ever wonder what the North Koreans are thinking?  I do.  Here’s a country that has spent a huge portion of their tiny country’s income on developing nuclear weapons and a missile technology to deliver them, and they can’t feed their own people.  I guess they decided on guns over butter.

A couple of months ago a South Korean ship exploded and sank, killing 46 sailors.  They suspected the North Koreans.  The North Koreans said “Nah, not us.”

Yesterday the results of further investigation revealed parts of a torpedo among the wreckage of the ship with North Korean markings on them.

“Nah not us,” say the North Koreans. “And if you do anything to retaliate, this means WAR!”

That’s a big bummer for South Korea, Seoul is within artillery range of North Korean gun positions.  Yes, the South Koreans can prove the torpedo sank the ship.  Yes, they can prove it was a North Korean torpedo.  They can even show satellite photos of a North korean submarine leaving port 2 days before the sinking.  But can they do anything about it?  No.

The South Koreans are taking their complaint to the UN.  But what will that accomplish?  More sanctions?  North Korea is already starving and has a rapidly collapsing infrastructure.  Power and water flow failures are a part of everyday life for North Koreans.  The country is falling apart, which makes the situation even scarier.

From independent news reports, we do know that most North Koreans believe themselves to be in a perpetual state of siege.  Surrounded by a sea of enemies, In their minds they’re desperately hanging on to the last vestiges of their sovereignty.  That’s good for the current government, because otherwise starving people revolt.

I guess if you have nuclear weapons, and are very aggressive, a government can pretty much do whatever it wants.  Is it any wonder that most of the world fears Iran having the same ability?

I don’t pretend to be able to recommend any course of action here.  This is the kind of problem suited to mightier minds than mine.  I’m just hoping that North Korea doesn’t get so desperate in their delusion that they decide their only option to survive is to attack a neighbor.  It’s pretty obvious which neighbor they’d pick, and I doubt it’s China.

But, back to the sinking of the ship, what exactly was that supposed to accomplish?  What is going on in the minds that conceived the attack?

“We’re so sick of you imperialist bastards with your fancy cell phones and instant kim chee, take that!”

Are they hoping that South Korea will be provoked into attacking them?  I doubt that is going to happen, South Korea is a peaceful nation with a booming economy, Even though they lost 46 sailors from an unprovoked attack, they are not risking Seoul.  Besides, how would a conflict with South Korea help North Korea?

I wonder if anyone really understands what The North Koreans are thinking?

Copyright Prentiss Gray 2010

Prentiss Gray is a writer and columnist and currently writes the Domesti-Tech Blog for Gannett.  He can be reached through his website at www.prentissgray.com

After all, you need money to fight a war – it has been argued that all world empires have collapsed ultimately economically because they had to protect too much territory with too little money – and conquest often brings in money. In the past, wars have often [...]]]> War and money have always been inter-related.

After all, you need money to fight a war – it has been argued that all world empires have collapsed ultimately economically because they had to protect too much territory with too little money – and conquest often brings in money. In the past, wars have often been fought to seize resources and enrich the conqueror – ask any passing European colonialist – and a short war generally proves a great stimulus to the economy too.

In feudal times, the king mostly fought wars to keep his otherwise revolting and over-mighty robber barons exhausted but happy. According to feudal law, the barons had to raise the army, but they then got to go on a glorified fox hunt in foreign lands and to return with goodies and rights to land far more valuable than both ears and the tail.

When the feudal system collapsed in the face of the rise of mercantilism in the sixteenth century, the king had to go to Parliament to raise taxes to fund his army, but he still managed to keep his greatest adventurers adventuring on someone else’s doorstep and bringing back the loot.

Not that the formula was infallible. Charles I of England seemingly got it wrong when he declared an unpopular war on Scotland and then tried to raise Ship Money to pay for it. He made the even bigger mistake of stockpiling all these expensively purchased armaments in Hull which subsequently declared for the rebel parliamentarians. However, as the Marxist historian Christopher Hill pointed out, the truth may have been a little different from the way it has been traditionally painted.

Most of the leaders of the Parliamentary rebels, including John Hampden and Oliver Cromwell, had another axe entirely to grind. In the 1630s they had backed a commercial speculation called the Providence Island Company which collapsed, taking their fortunes with it. Something drastic had to be done and raising money for a large army, some of which would get lost in their own pockets, seemed an excellent way to go, especially when they happened to win the subsequent war and Oliver Cromwell got made Dictator.

The Second War of Iraq was a classic of medieval politics and money making. George W. Bush got to declare war on Iraq under an entirely spurious pretext and then persuaded those dupes the American people to fund the war out of their taxes. Astonishingly enough, Bush’s political allies seem to have profited rather excessively as a result of contracts aimed their way and the military-industrial complex likewise – furnishing a double dose of pork-barrel politics to fuel re-election – and only the American and Iraqi people missed out. Tough titties, huh?

However, there was a drawback to this dramatic money-circulating scam. The US government was already in deep doo-doo deficit, so there was a limit to how much money could be transferred from the many to the few. This is where Bush’s true genius came in. Under rules related to Homeland Security, he managed to persuade everybody across the world, including the usually intensively and righteously secretive Swiss, to declare whenever money moved around (even by PayPal), all in the name of the War against Terror, you understand. This level of global scrutiny cunningly enables the IRS to track down taxation money so much more efficiently, bringing to book avoiders and evaders alike.

You have to hand it to them, in more ways than one ….

Listening to National Public Radio can be very distracting, possibly even worse than keeping up with this site.  However, today at noon, I sadly missed the end of an Obama speech to a Wall Street crowd (nobody got smacked, apparently) and sat, dejectedly as the speech coverage switched to the [...]]]>

Mowed 'em down

Listening to National Public Radio can be very distracting, possibly even worse than keeping up with this site.  However, today at noon, I sadly missed the end of an Obama speech to a Wall Street crowd (nobody got smacked, apparently) and sat, dejectedly as the speech coverage switched to the Internet and the regular Lenoard Lopate show took over my radio.

Wikileaks

I wasn’t disappointed for very long, NPR almost always has something interesting going on.  Although I will say that they have an almost fiendish penchant for finding the world’s worst music for shows like Sound Check.

The next story up was about Wikileaks release of a gun-camera video from a helicopter orbiting a square in bagdad during the roughest part of the fighting there.  Complete with chilling audio commentary from the soldiers themselves, it features the almost complete annihilation of 8 to 10 civilians and two news men from Reuters.  The video goes on to show a passing van with two men and two children stopping to rescue one of the civilians who was still moving.  How does the song go?

“Out of the doorway the bullets ripped. Another one bites the dust.”

Or in this case, two more dead men and two wounded children.  The van didn’t do so well either.  You don’t find out about the kids in the car until after you see the helicopter gunship’s 30 and 50 caliber guns “ventilate” it.

There are two versions of the video, the 39 minute full length version and the edited down 17 minute version.  Both make one thing very clear, the Iraq war was a mess.  From Abu Ghraib to the lack of WMDs and the thousand incidents that didn’t get video’d we’re all getting a whole new picture of  modern warfare.  It gets less and less glorious every day.

Who’s fault?

That would be the million dollar question, or perhaps the multi-billion dollar question.  For my money it’s probably not the soldiers who fired on the people in the square.  They were fighting a war in a very crowded place where the enemy has the nerve to dress like regular civilians.

I guess we can’t blame the civilians, or should they have been home cowering?  The same goes for the newspeople, they were out doing their jobs.  I remember being more than a little disgusted with newspeople in general for the period of about a year when nobody ever seemed to come out of the Bagdad hotel.  I’m having second thoughts about that now.

What about the Ba’ath party or Al Qaeda, even though they weren’t actually there?  Or how about our own army personnel who “investigated” the deaths of the reporters?  Can we blame them for not wanting anyone to see this tape?

Rules of engagement

My personal take on this is that the concept of “rules of engagement” is at fault.  Riding right up there with Mutually Assured Destruction, Rules of Engagement is a bizarre concept.  How soon will soldiers have to have their targets fill out and sign a waiver form before they attack them?

“Yeah, that’s good….Now sign here and initial here, and here…Wait, did you use pencil?!!!  Oh my god! This war’s going to take all night!”

I do think that tapes like this getting out is a good thing.  Ever since the Vietnam war was televised nightly, we’ve been getting a good close look at what armed conflict is really like.  On an increasingly crowded world, it’s starting to sink in that shooting at each other never is as simple a solution as it seems.  It’s not quite as heroic or decisive as we might hope.

Even though we Americans are favoring weapons that let us stay pretty much out of harms way, we still have to explain all the accidents of war.  Even with autonomous drone attack fighters, guns that shoot around corners and self-guided missiles that come in through the bathroom window and ruin your whole day, we’re still subject to the views and opinions of an increasingly knowledgeable and current population.  Everyone is watching, all the time, and judging as well.

Soldiers always knew that war wasn’t glorious.  That it wasn’t clean.  That it really wasn’t good versus evil.  Now the rest of us are being brought up with the daily sights of violence and conflict, and we’re slowly coming to the same conclusions.

I wonder if that’s how peace finally arrives, as a sickness from too much of the sights and sounds of war?

Heres the link to the video

Guncamera video –   (Watch the short version)

Copyright Prentiss Gray 2010

Prentiss Gray is a writer and columnist and currently writes the Domesti-Tech Blog for Gannett.  He can be reached through his website at www.prentissgray.com

There were three “suicides” at Guantanamo in 2006.  Three inmates climbed to the top of their washstands, tied handy ropes to the [...]]]> Anybody who reads the March edition of Harpers will be  shaking their head at the absolute stupidity and gall of the Bush administration when it concerned itself with the operations at Guantanamo.

There were three “suicides” at Guantanamo in 2006.  Three inmates climbed to the top of their washstands, tied handy ropes to the top of a wire fence wall and hung themselves.  It really was a thoroughly strong effort, after all, they did this with hands and feet bound.  Just to make sure no one was disturbed, before they jumped to their collective doom they stuffed rags down their throats beyond the gag point and strapped them in with more gags tied around their heads.  Did I mention they did this all at the same time?

Those tricky terrorists, take that America!  The defense department described the event as an “act of asymmetric warfare.”  Yup, no doubt in my mind.  Asymmetric warefare, that when you kill yourself to really piss off the enemy, right?  Whoa, devastating.

Strangely, perhaps as part of some military tradition, major sections of each inmates throats were removed before the bodies were shipped home.  I guess this was all part of the brilliant master plan, as was the cautioning lecture, by the commandant the following day to all the nearby guards, not to discuss the whole rags down the throats part. That includes no discussion of the many needle marks, contusions, and other damage the bodies obviously suffered on their way off the wash stands.

Sadly, one of the guards did.  So now the whole nasty story is coming out, three years later.  Good for him.  As it turns out, it sounds a lot like these three inmates died after being taken to a nearby installation, aptly named “Camp No.”  As in “no body’s supposed to know about camp NO.”  They did come back from the camp, but this time they exited the transport at the medical loading dock, with the rest of the dead weight.

Just great.  I’m sure Mr. Cheney has a plausible explanation that covers the value of extorting information from dead prisoners.  I’m sure President Obama is eternally grateful for yet another monstrous scandal resulting from the war on terror.  It’s getting to be a bigger and bigger problem to “look forward, not back,”  Mr. President.  Somebody needs to get a rope.  It will be with great difficulty that  the armed forces of these United States will look back on these moments with pride, another administration has belittled their hard fought reputation.  I wonder what the vaunted NCIS will have to say about the results of their own investigation of the events which concluded that these were in fact, well coordinated suicides.  How about the old Curly Howard line “Hamana, hamana, hamana…..”

It will be a huge mess to clean up, and of course it happens to come to light right after a year of struggling for success against the conservative right-wing monster the Republican party became during the Bush administration.  The same group who were so convinced of their “rightness” they’ll kill, torture, lie and shame the whole country in front of the world.  We were right to want change, we just didn’t know how right.

Something to think about for next November when the Republicans try and “take back our country.”  How about we tell them “No” for a change?

Here’s a piece on the “suicides.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/soldz01192010.html

Here’s the original

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006368

By the way, as always, comments are welcome.

Copyright Prentiss Gray 2010

Prentiss Gray is a writer and columnist and currently writes the Domesti-Tech Blog for Gannett.  He can be reached through his website at www.prentissgray.com

by Bob Grant

On October 1, 1949 the People’s Republic of China was formally established in a speech given by Mao Zedong from the Imperial Gate at Tiananmen Square. I stood at the very spot where Mao gave his speech and took the photo at the right.  From speaking with [...]]]> Are You Your Government?

by Bob Grant

On October 1, 1949 the People’s Republic of China was formally established in a speech given by Mao Zedong from the Imperial Gate at Tiananmen Square. I stood at the very spot where Mao gave his speech and took the photo at the right.  From speaking with people – in China – who lived through his reign it was beyond believable.  What he put his people through is an unforgivable act of power and brutality.  However, it is images from Mao’s era that some – outside of China – still have of the Chinese people.  Nothing could be farther from the truth!

I never met a Chinese government official – did not even see one at least that I can recall.  What I did meet were the people of China – the people with whom I had my business and personal interactions.  I did not ask them questions about their government nor did they ask questions of mine.  The only political statement – that I ever heard – was a reference that China’s policy would probably change when the younger generation came into power, someday. 

In meetings, over two years ago, I heard about the oil pipeline being built directly from Iran to China.  None of the people – in that meeting – expressed an opinion one way or the other regarding this pipeline.  It was a decision the Chinese government made.  Maybe my associates did not approve of dealing with Iran – maybe they did?  The point being here is their government made this decision – not my associates.

Whether the officials in power – in the US – are republican or democrat they have all made decisions of which I don’t agree.  They did not consult me or ask my opinion – am I my government in these situations?

The point I am trying to make is that I found the Chinese people – I met – just like me in a lot of respects.  I enjoyed doing business with them – learning their culture – and becoming their friends.  No government – or its actions – is ever going to change that for me!

by Bob Grant

How can you embrace an enemy of the USA?  More important – why would you?  If these questions have not been outright asked of me – they have been implied.  Why I chose to speak highly of China, and its people, is something that I [...]]]> I am not the Manchurian Candidate

by Bob Grant

How can you embrace an enemy of the USA?  More important – why would you?  If these questions have not been outright asked of me – they have been implied.  Why I chose to speak highly of China, and its people, is something that I do willingly and with pride.  I am not the Manchurian Candidate.  I was never brain washed during my visits there.  I was not tortured or forced into my feelings in any way.  Subliminal messages were not piped into my hotel room at night.  I did not have bamboo shoots shoved under my fingernails.  I was not drugged or impaired in any way unless it was done willingly by drinking too much of that fine Chinese beer.

Within my small circle of business contacts, experiences, and associations I would say it is Western business people who are trying to brain wash the Chinese.  As I developed my business relationships – I both read and experienced failures mainly because Western companies tried to “Westernize” their Chinese business partners rather than adapting to their Chinese partners way of doing business.  Maybe it has been different for others who have done business within China – but for me, personally, my successes came from letting the Chinese conduct business in “their way” and I tried to educate my customers in their methods and ways.  I won’t say it was not frustrating at times – in fact, it was frustrating most of the time.  However, in the end it was what worked best for me while others failed.  Honor and “saving face” are very important to the Chinese – I tried not to put any of my associates in a position that threatened either.

Again, just from my experience I have to say that people – from any part of the world – can work together to achieve a common goal if all parties can be flexible and understanding.  From my perspective – this is the true receipt for success among the world’s population.

by Bob Grant

I have been traveling to China since 1998.  I would not consider myself a seasoned traveler to that country – making around 25 visits total.  When I traveled there I usually stayed between one and two weeks – never during any of my visits [...]]]> I Never met a Communist in China

by Bob Grant

I have been traveling to China since 1998.  I would not consider myself a seasoned traveler to that country – making around 25 visits total.  When I traveled there I usually stayed between one and two weeks – never during any of my visits did I ever see, or meet, a “Red” Chinese person.  I saw no one wearing an “I am a Communist” sweatshirt, ball cap, t-shirt, sun glasses, button, or anything else physically labeling them a Communist.  I saw no street banners, bumper stickers, store front displays, mass gatherings, or any other public notice that I was among Communists.  What I was among were just people – regular people.

All of my visits were for business purposes.  I met with business people – only – and traveled to see their factories or offices.  I did not take much time to “sightsee” which was a mistake in retrospect.  With my business I tended to visit locations where I was the “only” non-Chinese person within miles.  I never felt threatened or out of place.  No one ever stared at me or pointed – “Look at that non-Communist person.”  I found “most” of the people with whom I came in contact – both during business meetings and other activities – to be very pleasant, warm, humble, honorable, respectful, and charming.  I will have to admit that I did have some dealings with business people who were other than honest; however, China does not hold a monopoly on those types of business people.  As a rule I found the Chinese people – with whom I had my dealings – to be extremely hard working, dedicated, and honest.

I had no fear going out on my own – in any part of China that I visited – day or night.  I was never threatened or accosted in any manner.  One day I was walking around a city on a Sunday afternoon – alone.  I felt a tug on my shirt sleeve and turned to find two young girls at my side.  One asked me if they could speak with me – in fairly good English.  I did not suspect their reasons for talking with me to be anything other than honorable so I said “sure.”  The girls were students at the university and their English professor had given them an assignment to stop – interview – and take a photo with any “Westerner.”  They said they had been looking for hours and I was the only “Westerner” they had seen.  I was happy to answer their questions – one of the girls took my photo with the other girl – they thanked me, and went on their way.  These were just two young students – with an assignment – and I felt honored that I was able to help them complete it.

Perhaps I am being a bit naive – I was obviously around Communists during my visits to China – but I never felt that I had really “met” one.  I had been fortunate enough to meet people from another country – and culture – and they had accepted me at face value.  I enjoyed each one of my visits to China and care a great deal for China and its people.  I truly believe if people could meet – and work – with other people around the world that a lot of the world’s problems would be solved.  Perhaps this is a bit Pollyanna of me but this is how I see things from my myopic point of view and experiences, with China and its people, and I will stand by them.

As I listened to the President address the nation from West Point, I was reminded of how well he can deliver a speech. It’s like watching a slight-of-hand magician. You marvel at his dexterity, but you know he’s still skillfully fooling you.

The speech, given in the Eisenhower [...]]]> The Open-Ended War

By Alan Caruba

As I listened to the President address the nation from West Point, I was reminded of how well he can deliver a speech. It’s like watching a slight-of-hand magician. You marvel at his dexterity, but you know he’s still skillfully fooling you.

The speech, given in the Eisenhower auditorium at West Point, reminded me of President Eisenhower, the former general who led allied forces to victory in Europe in World War Two, the man called back to serve his nation, and a man who was hard on the ears when it came to delivering a speech. It made him more human. We forgave him his blunt manner. After all, he had spent his whole adult life in the U.S. Army, taking and giving orders.

Similarly President Bush never seemed all that comfortable giving a set speech, but you knew he meant what he said. You knew he hated the evil of al Qaeda and the Taliban. You knew he despised Saddam Hussein and other enemies of America, of freedom, and human dignity. He was not smooth, not articulate, but he was genuine.

Barack Hussein Obama never spent a day in uniform and something in the area of two years out of six of his first term in the Senate before being launched on the nation as its savior, its messiah. I always found the references to spiritual powers jarring though, like most, amusing in their over-reach. Obama did nothing to discourage the image.

His West Point speech was primarily political. The military elements revealed a get-in and get-out strategy in what has already been a long engagement of the U.S. military in the Middle East. It was filled with talk of NATO partners, Afghani partners, and Pakistani partners, but it also told the enemy that, if they were just patient enough, the U.S. would leave.

Wars, the generals tell us, have to be fought in terms of what the enemy does, not by any timetable we devise. Obama handed us, al Qaeda, and the Taliban a timetable.

When we leave, the Afghan government will still be as corrupt as ever. When we leave the Pakistan government will be as shaky as ever, though perhaps a bit bolder in its desire to resist the Taliban.

Obama made a powerful argument for the need to stamp out the Taliban and kill al Qaeda. He also said that both had “defiled” Islam “one of the world’s great religions.”

Islam is also the world’s single most violent and destabilizing ideology, causing death and spreading terror recently in the Philippines, destroying Somalia, and with a list of atrocities from Mumbai, India, to Madrid, Spain, to London, England. And, of course, on 9/11.

Islam struck again at Fort Hood, Texas.

The one undeniable fact of our times is that the U.S. and the civilized world are in an open-ended war with Islam.

Ironically, one of the expressed aims of al Qaeda is the overthrow of the monarchs, despots or elected leaders of Middle Eastern Islamic nations.

Neither al Qaeda’s soldiers, nor the Taliban, wear uniforms. They are classic guerrilla fighters, fading away like fog into the indigenous population. Not since the day of the Kamikaze, has the world witnessed suicide as an act of war.

While listening to our young President, I was reminded, too, of John F. Kennedy’s inaugural speech, possibly one of the greatest ever delivered in America since Lincoln’s Gettysburg address.

On that cold January day in1961, Kennedy said, “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

While Obama’s speech was delivered well and met with polite applause from the cadets and others at West Point, its real message was that America will not shoulder the burdens of an open-ended war by itself or with the desultory support of NATO allies.

I thought, too, of the long Cold War America fought with the former Soviet Union.

For a little while, Afghanistan will be Obama’s war. And then we will leave.

We have some big problems here at home, a recession and joblessness, but we have always been able to work our way out of these cyclical financial difficulties.

This time it’s different. We have a White House and Congress hell-bent on initiatives such as Obamacare and Cap-and-Trade that will utterly destroy the economy and the nation. And they know it. And they don’t care.

One wonders, at this time and place, which is the worse enemy?

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center – he blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.c

This week, two points in an emerging pointillist picture of a White House leaking support—not the support of voters, though polls there show steady decline, but in two core constituencies, Washington’s Democratic-journalistic establishment, and what might [...]]]> He Can’t Take Another Bow

An icon of a White House that is coming to seem amateurish.

This week, two points in an emerging pointillist picture of a White House leaking support—not the support of voters, though polls there show steady decline, but in two core constituencies, Washington’s Democratic-journalistic establishment, and what might still be called the foreign-policy establishment.

From journalist Elizabeth Drew, a veteran and often sympathetic chronicler of Democratic figures, a fiery denunciation of—and warning for—the White House. In a piece in Politico on the firing of White House counsel Greg Craig, Ms. Drew reports that while the president was in Asia last week, “a critical mass of influential people who once held big hopes for his presidency began to wonder whether they had misjudged the man.” They once held “an unromantically high opinion of Obama,” and were key to his rise, but now they are concluding that the president isn’t “the person of integrity and even classiness they had thought.”

Associated Press

President Obama bows as he shakes hands with Japanese Emperor Akihito.

She scored “the Chicago crowd,” which she characterized as “a distressingly insular and small-minded West Wing team.” The White House, Ms. Drew says, needs adult supervision—”an older, wiser head, someone with a bit more detachment.”

As I read Ms. Drew’s piece, I was reminded of something I began noticing a few months ago in bipartisan crowds. I would ask Democrats how they thought the president was doing. In the past they would extol, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, his virtues. Increasingly, they would preface their answer with, “Well, I was for Hillary.” This in turn reminded me of a surprising thing I observe among loyal Democrats in informal settings and conversations: No one loves Barack Obama. Half the American people say they support him, and Democrats are still with him. But there were Bill Clinton supporters who really loved him. George W. Bush had people who loved him. A lot of people loved Jack Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. But no one seems to love Mr. Obama now; they’re not dazzled and head over heels. That’s gone away. He himself seems a fairly chilly customer; perhaps in turn he inspires chilly support. But presidents need that rock—bottom 20% who, no matter what’s happening—war, unemployment—adore their guy, have complete faith in him, and insist that you love him, too.

They’re the hard 20 a president always keeps. Nixon kept them! Obama probably has a hard 20 too, but whatever is keeping them close, it doesn’t seem to be love.

***

Just as stinging as Elizabeth Drew on domestic matters was Leslie Gelb on Mr. Obama and foreign policy in the Daily Beast. Mr. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and fully plugged into the Democratic foreign-policy establishment, wrote this week that the president’s Asia trip suggested “a disturbing amateurishness in managing America’s power.” The president’s Afghanistan review has been “inexcusably clumsy,” Mideast negotiations have been “fumbling.” So unsuccessful was the trip that Mr. Gelb suggested Mr. Obama take responsibility for it “as President Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs.”

He added that rather than bowing to emperors—Mr. Obama “seems to do this stuff spontaneously and inexplicably”—he should begin to bow to “the voices of experience” in Washington.

When longtime political observers start calling for wise men, a president is in trouble.

It also raises a distressing question: Who are the wise men and women now? Who are the Robert Lovetts, Chip Bohlens and Robert Strausses who can came in to help a president in trouble right his ship? America seems short of wise men, or short on those who are universally agreed to be wise. I suppose Vietnam was the end of that, but establishments exist for a reason, and it is hard for a great nation to function without the presence of a group of “the oldest and wisest” who can not only give sound advice but help engineer how that advice will be reported and received.

***

Mr Obama is in a hard place. Health care hangs over him, and if he is lucky he will lose a close vote in the Senate. The common wisdom that he can’t afford to lose is exactly wrong—he can’t afford to win with such a poor piece of legislation. He needs to get the issue behind him, vow to fight another day, and move on. Afghanistan hangs over him, threatening the unity of his own Democratic congressional base. There is the growing perception of incompetence, of the inability to run the machine of government. This, with Americans, is worse than Obama’s rebranding as a leader who governs from the left. Americans demand baseline competence. If he comes to be seen as Jimmy Carter was, that the job was bigger than the man, that will be the end.

Which gets us back to the bow.

In a presidency, a picture or photograph becomes iconic only when it seems to express something people already think. When Gerald Ford was spoofed for being physically clumsy, it took off. The picture of Ford losing his footing and tumbling as he came down the steps of Air Force One became a symbol. There was a reason, and it wasn’t that he was physically clumsy. He was not only coordinated but graceful. He’d been a football star at the University of Michigan and was offered contracts by the Detroit Lions and Green Bay Packers.

But the picture took off because it expressed the growing public view that Ford’s policies were bumbling and stumbling. The picture was iconic of a growing political perception.

The Obama bowing pictures are becoming iconic, and they would not be if they weren’t playing off a growing perception. If the pictures had been accompanied by headlines from Asia saying “Tough Talks Yield Big Progress” or “Obama Shows Muscle in China,” the bowing pictures might be understood this way: “He Stoops to Conquer: Canny Obama shows elaborate deference while he subtly, toughly, quietly advances his nation’s interests.”

But that’s not how the pictures were received or will be remembered.

It is true that Mr. Obama often seems not to have a firm grasp of—or respect for—protocol, of what has been done before and why, and of what divergence from the traditional might imply. And it is true that his political timing was unfortunate. When a great nation is feeling confident and strong, a surprising presidential bow might seem gracious. When it is feeling anxious, a bow will seem obsequious.

The Obama bowing pictures are becoming iconic not for those reasons, however, but because they express a growing political perception, and that is that there is something amateurish about this presidency, something too ad hoc and highly personalized about it, something . . . incompetent, at least in its first year.

It is hard to be president, and White Houses under pressure take refuge in thoughts that become mantras. When the previous White House came under mounting criticism from 2005 through ’08, they comforted themselves by thinking, They criticized Lincoln, too. You could see their minds whirring: Lincoln was criticized, Lincoln was great, ergo we are great. But of course just because they say you’re stupid doesn’t mean you’re Lincoln.

One senses the Obama people are doing the Lincoln too, and adding to it the consoling thought that this is only the first year, we’ve got three years to go, we can change perceptions, don’t worry.

But they should worry. You can get tagged, typed and pegged your first year. Gerald Ford did, and Ronald Reagan too, more happily. The first year is when indelible impressions are made and iconic photos emerge.

  About Peggy Noonan
Peggy Noonan is a columnist for The Wall Street Journal whose work appears weekly in the Journal’s Weekend Edition and on OpinionJournal.com.

She is the author of eight books on American politics and culture. The most recent, “Patriotic Grace,” is to be published in October 2008. Her first book, the bestseller “What I Saw at the Revolution: A Political Life in the Reagan Era,” was published in 1990.

She was a special assistant to the president in the White House of Ronald Reagan. Before that she was a producer at CBS News in New York. In 1978 and 1979 she was an adjunct professor of journalism at New York University.

President Obama loves to travel. He cannot wait to descend the steps from Airforce One to the sounds of welcoming bands, honor guards, and awaiting dignitaries. On his whirlwind November 13-19 trip to Asia, however, he is likely to be sternly lectured behind closed doors from Tokyo [...]]]> China Will Surprise Obama

By Alan Caruba

President Obama loves to travel. He cannot wait to descend the steps from Airforce One to the sounds of welcoming bands, honor guards, and awaiting dignitaries. On his whirlwind November 13-19 trip to Asia, however, he is likely to be sternly lectured behind closed doors from Tokyo to Beijing and Seoul. It will come as a surprise to him.

That’s because he will be around grownups who don’t much like the way the United States’ economy is being overseen and directed these days. All that splash and dash that keeps Americans thinking that everything will get better doesn’t work in Asia. Worse yet, Obama will arrive with very little to offer.

Already we have seen him in his usual holier-than-thou mode lecture the Chinese on their need to extend more freedom and be more tolerant; themes that must sound naïve to his hosts who must meet the challenge of providing a better life for more than a billion Chinese.

The most amazing aspect of the story of modern China is the way, following the demise of Chairman Mao, they threw communism overboard, except politically, in favor of capitalism.

In early 2009, observers wondered if the recession that hit the United States and rippled out around the world would also set back China. By October, however, they were marveling that its aggressive stimulus had led to a growth of its GDP by 9% by its third quarter. Meanwhile, other economies, including the U.S., saw their GDP fall.

The Chinese mix caution with risk well. As The Economist noted in October, “Until recently China’s recovery was driven largely by state spending, but thanks to a rebound in construction, private-sector investment rose by 30% in the year to August, double its growth rate in December.”

Unlike the U.S. stimulus that has barely had an impact on our economy, the Chinese stimulus was directed to new infrastructure, especially railways and roads, both of which are expected to improve future productivity, moving people and goods more swiftly around the huge expanse of that nation.

Noteworthy as well has been China’s forward thinking energy program, building coal-fired plants at a brisk pace to extend electricity and, with it the prosperity that comes from affordable energy. By contrast, Obama recently visited and lauded a $150 million Florida solar power array that will only produce electricity for an average of four hours daily.

Most of America’s “shovel ready” projects are still waiting for the first shovel while most of the stimulus money spent to date was a bailout of states to cover Medicare and other federal mandated costs.

My concern is that Obama is probably clueless regarding economic issues and realities. If it doesn’t involve unions, Obama isn’t much interested in the welfare of American industry. He has even less knowledge of agriculture.

When General Motors was bailed out before and after declaring bankruptcy, Obama made sure that it was the unions that were put in charge. Quietly, Chrysler recently announced it would not be manufacturing electric cars. The auto company that refused government assistance, Ford Motors, is thriving.

Someone has probably briefed Obama on the fact that China is both America’s key trading partner and rival. China has been paying a lot of attention to trade of late, signing what Business Week described as “a bewildering variety of free-trade pacts with neighbors.” It is even making nice with Taiwan while talks are underway to liberalize trade terms with South Korea and the Persian Gulf states.

While the U.S. trade deals cover lower tariffs they also tend to incorporate all manner of other objectives such as intellectual property rights, government procurement rules, and even labor and environmental codes. The Chinese focus on more narrow, achievable goals. As Business Week noted, “Most manufactured goods made in Southeast Asia will now enter China duty-free, but goods shipped from the U.S. will still face average duties of 9%.”

Many U.S. manufacturers will decide to set up shop in Southeast Asia in order to have better access to China. Increased exports to China cushioned Japan’s economy as its exports to the U.S. plunged.

So, what is the Obama administration doing to improve the situation at home? It has proposed a healthcare “reform” to take control of one-sixth of the nation’s economy. It has a “cap-and-trade” bill that will impose higher taxes on all energy use. The proposed cap-and-trade bill will make it nearly impossible to sell one’s home without pouring thousands into it in order to meet environmental and energy conservation standards.

The first job for all Americans these days is to survive the Obama administration long enough to rescue the nation from further losses at home and abroad.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center – he blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.c

War

During America’s brutal and bloody Civil War, General William T. Sherman said, “War is cruel and you cannot refine it” and “war at best is barbarism.” Sherman is also credited with saying “War is hell.”

Alexander [...]]]>

War

During America’s brutal and bloody Civil War, General William T. Sherman said, “War is cruel and you cannot refine it” and “war at best is barbarism.” Sherman is also credited with saying “War is hell.”

Alexander the Great was known to be both a wise philosopher and a fearless conqueror. In the fall of 335 BC, Alexander marched to the gates of Thebes (a Greek city that broke free from his Macedonian empire when Alexander was twenty). He let the people of Thebes know that it was not too late for them to change their minds. The next day, the Macedonians stormed the city killing almost everyone in sight, women and children included. They plundered, sacked, burned and razed Thebes, as an example to the rest of Greece. Alexander did not fight a “refined” war where women and children were spared.

After Alexander conquered the Persian Empire, he ran into trouble in Afghanistan and used the same tactics to quell the rebellious Afghans.

Genghis Khan (1165-1227 AD) was one of history’s more charismatic and dynamic leaders. During his lifetime, he conquered more territory than any other conqueror, and his successors established the largest empire in history. As an organizational and strategic genius, Genghis Khan created one of the most highly disciplined and effective armies known, and this same genius gave birth to the administration that ruled that empire. After he died in 1227, the Mongol armies dominated the battlefield until the empire stretched from the Pacific Ocean to the Adriatic Sea. Genghis Khan, like Alexander, spared no one when he met resistance. When people surrendered, he was benevolent. When they resisted, his armies slaughtered everyone like Alexander’s armies did.

Both Alexander and Khan allowed freedom of religion, and Alexander built universities and libraries because he believed in education.

There are more examples of men like Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan, who knew how to fight wars and win them. Nowhere, is there evidence that they fought under the rules of combat and restrictions that American soldiers must fight under today.

These restrictions started in Vietnam and continue in Iraq and Afghanistan. These same rules were one of the reasons America lost the war in Vietnam. I am not defending the Vietnam War. It was wrong. President Johnson started the war on a lie similar to what President George W. Bush did when he claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (that did not exist) so he could start a war against Saddam Hussein.

Once at war, telling soldiers they cannot kill or hurt people considered innocent (like women and children) is folly. Such rules bind the weapons men use and such wars cannot be won when the enemy does not follow the same rules.

I’m aware that is it politically incorrect in America to say this, but the attempt to “refine” war and civilize it so only combatants are killed or wounded is wrong. I agree that killing innocents is considered barbarous. However, General William T. Sherman was correct when he said, “War is hell.”  If we are to learn anything from history, we should learn from people like Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan and others that fought to win the wars that they started. To do anything else leads to defeat and that should be unthinkable.

Today, America and the rest of Western civilization stands at a crossroads. We fight an enemy that will not surrender and will not stop. They don’t even have a country that our armies can defeat. Islamic fundamentalists have stated that their goal is to “destroy Western Civilization”, which means killing women and children. They have called America the Great Satan. These same people kill indiscriminately to spread terror and win the war they wage to create what will become an empire of horror and abuse against humanity. We have seen what like-minded rulers in Iran and Afghanistan (the Taliban) have done to their people.

Islamic fundamentalists know America’s weakness and they are exploiting it, and the Western media is helping them. Many in the West have used democracy and political pressure to hamper our soldiers in the field while those that want to kill us hide among innocent people making it all but impossible to defeat them.

There is a way to win this war against Islamic terrorism. The answer is in how we won World War II. America won against Nazi Germany and a militant Japan by being ruthless. Fleets of bombers firebombed cities in Germany and in Japan killing hundreds of thousands of people considered innocent and untouchable today.

By fighting war like Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan, America won World War II. The final stoke was when President Truman ordered atomic bombs dropped on two cities in Japan killing more than a hundred thousand women and children. The result was the end of a war that by all accounts caused the deaths of more than fifty million people and would have killed millions more before it would have been brought to a conclusion without the use of these weapons of mass destruction.

History shows us the way to victory. Why do we ignore those lessons when ignoring them could mean defeat, great suffering and the end of our way of life in the West?  I agree with Sherman when he said, “War at best is barbarism.” We cannot civilize war.

My fear is that there aren’t enough Americans or Europeans with the stomach to fight this war the way it should be fought—the way Alexander, Genghis Khan or Sherman would have fought it. If I am right, the defeat of Western civilization is assured. I hope that I am wrong. I hate war because it is “hell”, but agree that we must fight without restrictions to win.

In the Art of War, the oldest known military treatise in the world, Sun Tzu (6th century BC) wrote that “It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence, it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.”

Obama is not a happening thing now. Saw Obama voodoo dolls in [...]]]> Back from Italy and bummin’-caught a massive cold….funny, in March I was in the UK and they were really slurping Obama. Same in June in Germany although in July it changed when Merkel said he wasn’t going to ruin the German economy.

Obama is not a happening thing now. Saw Obama voodoo dolls in Portofino and Obama protests in Amsterdam. Winning  the Nobel incensed a lot of people over there..amazing the mainstream media here doesn’t show it……I do think he has to be close to a record forpissing off the most people in a short time span. When you have the Bush haters shaking their heads as well as the Gay Rights people something is wrong.

I wish he would either support the troops in Afghanistan or get them the hell out of there.

What continues to astound me is how wrong the Obama administration is on so many issues. It is not unusual to disagree with some element of the White House agenda, no matter who is president, but I keep looking for something, anything, with which to agree.

This [...]]]> Obama: Wrong, Just Wrong

By Alan Caruba

What continues to astound me is how wrong the Obama administration is on so many issues. It is not unusual to disagree with some element of the White House agenda, no matter who is president, but I keep looking for something, anything, with which to agree.

This is the price Americans who voted for “change” without actually asking or understanding what that change would be are paying. Most, I suspect, were so fixated on any change that did not include George W. Bush that it was no surprise that Obama’s initial answer to every question in the first few weeks of his term was to blame Bush for “the mess” he encountered.

The problem with that is that every president leaves his successor “a mess” in some respect. For ten years FDR never successfully figured a way out of the Great Depression until World War II solved that problem. When he died, Harry Truman had to conclude the war in the Pacific and did so with two A-bombs. Then he had to save Europe from Soviet ambitions and get the UN off the ground.

When I say “wrong”, I mean that it wasn’t just wrong to try to take over one sixth of the nation’s economy with a grandiose remaking of Medicare, but it was blindly arrogant and stupid. Medicare, heading toward insolvency and riddled with waste, was not the biggest problem to be solved, getting the nation’s financial house in order was.

How did Obama do that? Well, he got a massive “porkulus” bill passed that promised to jolt the economy with “shovel ready” projects and what everyone knew was just a lot of spending to help Democrats get reelected. Eight months later, barely ten percent of the money has been allocated and anyone out of diapers knows the stimulus will be replete with enormous waste.

When I say “enormous”, we are talking about billions and trillions. And that is the other wrong Obama perpetrated. He blessed the borrowing and spending of trillions of dollars, more than all the combined presidents who preceded him together. A nation with that much debt is automatically at a disadvantage, requiring either massive new taxes or, the least likely alternative, cutting spending.

If Obamacare wasn’t such a dumb idea, the other major legislative initiative is the utterly insane “Cap-and-Trade” bill that is a huge tax on energy use. Even internal White House memos estimate a cost of $1,800 per family in America if it passes. With most D.C. estimates, you can double them to arrive at the final, actual cost.

Taxing Americans at a time when they need to hold on to their money is wrong and stupid, but doing so in the name of reducing “global warming” when there hasn’t been any global warming for a decade and the planet is looking at ten, twenty or more years of cooling isn’t just wrong, it’s the worst kind of lie. Yes, the President is lying.

Then there’s Afghanistan. The generals want up to 40,000 troops to properly wage war there (if that is even possible) and a lot of Americans of my generation remember similar requests for Vietnam. Afghanistan is not, as the President says, a war of “necessity.” If you want to talk about necessity, talk about the possibility of the Taliban taking over Pakistan with its nuclear weapons. There’s nothing in Afghanistan worth fighting for.

The real necessity is the need to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. The president of France has been saying for months that Iran will soon have A-bombs and nuclear-tipped missiles. He’s worried because those missiles can strike France and, of course, all of the other European nations.

So, naturally, the news is that the President will not put a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic; another wrong decision.

What is Obama’s plan for Iran? He wants to kiss the hem of the Supreme Leader’s robe. He wants to “talk” with Ahmadinejad. This is worse than just wrong. It is just blind stupidity that will permit Iran’s lunatic leaders to assert nuclear hegemony over the entire Middle East while taking barely one day to obliterate Israel.

That’s what eight months of the incessant braying of the lead Democrat donkey has given us and it does not bode well for America or the world.

After nearly two million Americans showed up in Washington, D.C. on September 12th, the president’s chief advisor, David Axelrod, dismissed them as being “wrong” about the issues they protested.

No, it is this insanely ideological, utterly socialist, union boot-licking, anti-constitutional, “czar” crazy administration that is, sadly and dangerously, WRONG.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center – he blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com

Referring to a 1990 report in The Economist, the editors recently said, “To revisit the Arab world two decades later is to find that in many ways history continues to pass the Arabs by. Freedom? The Arabs are ruled now, as they were then, by a cartel [...]]]> The Middle East Maze

By Alan Caruba

Referring to a 1990 report in The Economist, the editors recently said, “To revisit the Arab world two decades later is to find that in many ways history continues to pass the Arabs by. Freedom? The Arabs are ruled now, as they were then, by a cartel of authoritarian regimes practiced in the arts of oppression.”

The central problem affecting the Middle East and much of northern Africa where Arabs rule is Islam. The Islam of the Middle East is utterly resistant to change. Not all of the world’s billion-plus Muslims practice Islam with the same intensity as many Arabs do (and we should note, as Iran’s Persians have pursued since their revolution in 1979.)

Trying to understand Arabs is like trying to find one’s way out of one of those cornfield mazes where most turns lead to a dead end. In a recent analysis by Herb Keinon in the Jerusalem Post the lament was familiar. It referred to a meeting in Khartoum after the loss of the 1967 war on Israel in which the participants agreed to the “Three No’s”; no to peace with Israel, no to recognition of Israel, and no to negotiations with Israel.

Reflecting the observations of The Economist, Keinon wrote that Syria still regards its loss of the Golan Heights and its demand for its return as “non-negotiable.” Add to that a meeting of Fatah rejected Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s call for a Palestinian recognition of Israel. This reflects the position of Hamas as well. And, finally, at a recent event at the U.S. State Department Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said that Israel could forget about any confidence-building measures from that nation.

In starkest terms, the Obama administration efforts to “re-set” its relations with the Middle East have hit the same brick wall that all previous administrations encountered. You cannot negotiate with people who have no intention to negotiate. The Israelis cannot find a partner for negotiations with the Palestinians because Fatah and Hamas would far prefer to kill one another than sit down together.

The Economist’s 14-page report, titled “Waking from its Sleep” correctly noted that there is no unanimity among the various Arab nations and not all Arabs are on the same page in much the same fashion as being “European” means different things to those identified as such. Nor are most of the world’s Muslims Arabs. Indeed, other than Israel, the only thing the Middle East’s Arabs agree upon is the common danger posed by Iran, a Muslim, but Persian nation.

On the political front, the Arab League “does little more than organize bad-tempered summits” and works “to fend off Western criticism of human-rights abuses by its members and (to) denounce Israel.”

It is a curious irony of history that neither the ancient Romans, nor modern American people ever wanted to create an empire, but both ended up in charge of one in an effort to fend off the enemies of peace. In the case of Rome, its allies asked for Roman protection and, in the case of America, following World War II, it emerged as the only superpower capable of fending off the threat of the Soviet Union and capable of interceding to stop conflicts.

America’s protection is understood to be the only reliable one worldwide and accounts for the many bases it maintains on the invitation of its many allies. Following WWII, America determined to stay in Europe to avoid a repeat of WWI and to fend off Soviet aggression. It helped found both the U.N. and NATO.

There is a further irony in the fact that the Arab nations in the Middle East are all fervently praying that Israel destroys the Iranian nuclear facilities in the same way it previously did in Iraq and, more recently, in Syria.

Is change coming to the Middle East? Yes, but it is likely to be very ugly and violent. Most of the nations are the product of British and French colonization following World War I that cobbled together the new “nations” such as Iraq and Jordan out of a desire to extend their own empires of trade.

As for Afghanistan, that ancient “nation” has been little more than warring tribes for millennia. Invaders have never had any success there though the goal of destroying al Qaeda and the Taliban is a sensible, necessary one.

America’s intervention, particularly after 9/11, was the act of an empire seeking to impose some measure of peace in the face of the rise of Al Qaeda and the endless wars by Saddam Hussein on his neighbors, Iran and Kuwait. Peace is the last thing that is likely to break out in the Middle East whose vast reserves of oil require that the West continue to intervene to protect its dependence on it.

“It is not difficult,” noted The Economist, “to paint a bleak picture of Arab failure, based on a broad spectrum of underperformance in investment, productivity, trade, education, social development, and even culture.” Thanks to Islam, it remains rooted in the seventh century sensibilities of marauding bands of Arabian tribes led by Mohammed that spread the “faith.” To this day, hardcore Muslims believe that the entire world must bend to Islam’s dreams of a caliphate, a single religion, and the brutal justice of Sharia law.

Thus, while Americans believe that more democracy is the answer to the problems of the region, what “democracy” that actually exists there is a sham. Despite the presence of parliaments, all real power resides with the monarchies and their governments are rubber stamps for the despots of varying descriptions.

One factor will have a significant role in the Mideast’s future and that is population. “By next year the region’s population will have doubled over 30 years from fewer than 180 million people to some 360 million.” The majority of Arabs are under 25 years old. That is a recipe for revolution and war.

What too many in the West desire is not attainable. The West wants the region to adopt a measure of justice and freedom that took hundreds of years to develop in its own area of the world. As a huge population of young Arabs seeks some measure of real freedom, they will likely turn to revolution and rebellion to achieve it. Or they may unite through sheer numbers to impose Sharia law on the West in a misguided attempt to determine their own fate. This factor is already transforming Europe with its growing Muslim population.

If there is one thing common to the Mideast it is their infinite capacity to blame everyone other than themselves for their own wretched state of oppression and lack of progress.

Meanwhile, the United States is desperately trying to restructure its own financial mess thanks to profligate spending and borrowing. Much of the West and the prosperity of trading partners such as China and Europe depend on this. Failure could plunge the world into chaos.

Unfortunately, the U.S. has chosen to turn power over to the first Marxist President ever elected and to a Congress dominated by a Democrat Party whose socialist inclinations threaten to bankrupt the nation with insane taxation of all energy use and a huge bureaucratic program to nationalize its healthcare system.

None of this bodes well for the future and the likelihood of wars, large and small, in the Middle East, spreading out to engulf the rest of the world remains a nightmare scenario.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center – he blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com .

Greetings to you, my charge, in the name of The Lord our God and Creator Who lovingly assigned me to you. I am always happy when God sends me to do something really important in your life. Great joy filled my soul last week when I intervened [...]]]> A Letter from Your Guardian Angel

Greetings to you, my charge, in the name of The Lord our God and Creator Who lovingly assigned me to you. I am always happy when God sends me to do something really important in your life. Great joy filled my soul last week when I intervened in the car accident you almost had. You knew it was me, didn’t you? You felt the brush of my wings.

There are just a few things we need to clear up. I suppose it is odd for you to get a letter from me, your Guardian Angel, but I can’t wait any longer to serve this message to you.

I bring glorious good tidings of great joy. I know you can’t see me but you know I am there. Remember when your grandmother passed away and you felt my presence? Yes, that was me, sent by God to comfort and protect you. I am always with you. I am in the cool breeze on a hot day, the glint of light in the dark night and the comfort you feel while you praise Him.

I want you to know I am not in the little golden pin you see on lapels throughout your culture. I am surely not a trumpet toting porcelain figurine on the coffee table. I am a messenger and a protector for
you. Everything I do is by command of God.

I am very old according to your standards and I have been there with you through every trial and every joy. I was there to hear your borning cry and I will be there the day you leave earth. I am fascinated with
you and the relationship you have with Jesus, it is really awesome.

Sometimes I ponder as you go about your daily business if you really know me or what it is you think of me. I am concerned that you truly must understand who I am and why God created me. I want you to
know God’s truth about angels. I want you to know me because I will be a part of your eternal environment.

I am eternal and I am always pointing you in the right direction-toward God. Remember how we sang when Jesus was born. We were pointing you to Him then and every Christmas since.

As an angel I already know the fullness of heaven. Someday, my beloved, you will experience it with me.

Angels do God’s perfect will and we do so gladly. You can find everything you need to know about me in God’s Holy Word. Don’t pray to me, pray to Him. Worship Him, we do. God is sovereign and only He is worthy of worship. And for heaven’s sake don’t set me up as an idol. Talk about uncomfortable—that really gets under my wings. I am just a ministering spirit sent by God to serve the redeemed.

Some humans see us from time to time and some do not. As wonderful as it would be to be visible in your presence God has given you something better. He has given you the greatest gift of all. His absolute presence through His Holy Spirit.

I am far more involved in your world than you realize. That is why I am writing these letters. I want you know me and the amazing things God’s Word tells you about me and my kind. God is not One to waste Bible space on things that are not important. He wants you to know who we are and what we do. Reading His Word will bring you closer to Him, and that is what I want for you. His Word has over 300 references to my kind. He created us for very special purposes. We get the big jobs and we are
constantly at work.

Just think of some of the things we have done that are recorded in Scripture. The birth of John the Baptist was proclaimed by an angel to John’s father, Zacharias, much to his surprise. When the angel told Zacharias that he and Elizabeth would have a child well after their childbearing years, Zacharias doubted it could be so. The angel had to act quickly and caused him to be mute so he didn’t spoil the entire thing. That was one of our biggest accomplishments recorded in the Gospel of Luke Chapter 1. Not only did the angel have the task of foretelling John’s birth but that he would be the forerunner of the Messiah. What a message that was!

The announcement to Mary that she would be the mother of Jesus was made by no ordinary angel. Only the angel Gabriel could carry out such a task. Gabriel is a high ranking archangel and one of only three whose names have been given to you in Scripture.

Joseph, the husband of Mary, found himself in a difficult situation. He was legally engaged to a pregnant woman who said she had been impregnated by the Holy Spirit. Joseph was thinking seriously about running for the hills. Matthew 1:20 tells that while he thought on these things an angel appeared to him in a dream and told him the truth about Mary. The angel told Joseph Who Jesus was and that “He shall save His people from their sins”.

Long before Zacharias, Mary and Joseph the angel Gabriel came to the prophet Daniel. While Daniel was praying Gabriel appeared to him and testified to the coming Messiah.

All of these assignments were major task, all pointing the way to Jesus. And when Jesus was crucified and buried in the tomb, we were the ones who had the incredible privilege of rolling the stone away.

What a joyous message we brought that day, He is not here, He is risen!!!

God uses us as much today as He did then. We have never stopped working for the redeemed. Angels don’t preach, we bring messages and assist those who do carry the gospel. Look how we helped Paul and Peter. We continue to do the same today. There are millions and trillions of testimonies to our work with missionaries and with those who carry the gospel to the lost.

One last thing before I close, when you die you will not be an angel. You will still be the redeemed. You will have songs to sing that we can’t sing, but I will be there to rejoice with you. I will be there when you pass from time to eternity.

 Remember the story of the blind beggar, Lazarus? We carried him to heaven, and we will carry you, too.

I love Matthew 25:31 “when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him,” Actually, I can’t wait for this day and we are in constant preparation. You should be too.

In closing, my beloved, remember to worship and pray to God. Only the Creator is worthy of worship, not the created. Prepare for the coming again of your Savior Jesus Christ and listen to the Holy Spirit within you. I will be with you. I think you are wonderful.

Angel kisses from heaven,

Your Guardian Angel

^i^

I could probably make some money if I bet most people they could not tell me where Honduras is and which nations it borders.

It is in the Central American region of nations between Mexico and the Panama Canal. It is bordered by Guatemala, [...]]]> U.S. Supporting Communist Takeover of Honduras

By Alan Caruba

I could probably make some money if I bet most people they could not tell me where Honduras is and which nations it borders.

It is in the Central American region of nations between Mexico and the Panama Canal. It is bordered by Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua.

There’s been attention paid to Honduras because its former president, Manuel Zelaya tried to do an end-run around its constitution to become the same kind of president-for-life as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Chavez, whose hero is Fidel Castro, is a flat-out Communist and, of course, he is supporting Zelaya’s return to power.

There was no Military Coup

Zelaya was arrested on June 28 by the Honduras military on the orders of its supreme court that had found him guilty of violating the constitution. The arrest also had the approval of the Honduran congress. This was not a military coup or overthrow as the U.S. State Department would like people to believe. Zelaya was arrested and flown to Costa Rica. He was replaced by Roberto Micheletti, a member of his own party.

The Economist reports that “In opinion polls 60%-70% of those who express an opinion say they do not object to Mr. Zelaya’s removal.” Honduras remains peaceful. There are no riots in the streets, protests demanding his return, et cetera. What does that tell you?
Despite reports to the contrary, Micheletti told reporters last week that Zelaya could return to Honduras only to face trial for abuse of power and other charges. “Under no circumstances will we let him take possession of the government,” he said.
Here’s where it becomes obvious that President Obama has taken sides with those who prefer a Communist thug to a constitutional replacement until Honduran national elections can be held in November.

Obama has made no secret of his Marxist preferences. At the Trinidad and Tobago Summit of the Americans, he made it clear that he was eager to see a “new beginning” in the U.S. relationship with Cuba. It is still in the grip of the Castro brothers and Raul just gave a speech reaffirm that Cuba will remain a Communist dictatorship.

At a recent meeting of the Organization of American States, steps were taken for Cuba to rejoin. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was among those voting to approve the acquittal of the Castro dictatorship. The State Department has refused to recognize the civil Honduran delegation that went to Washington to explain what occurred there.

Writing in Diario Las Americas, Miami, Amando Valladares, a former Cuban prisoner and a U.S. ambassador with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights during the Reagan and Bush governments, issued a strong warning that “the chancellors of the governments of the Americas could feel and see the grave internal Honduras situation, but all of them would rather wash their hands like Pilate did.”

The anti-Communist stand of Honduras is getting no support from the United States and, at the United Nations, there’s a debate regarding a new U.N. military doctrine called “Responsibility to Protect” that would be used as a cover to intervene in the sovereign affairs of a nation state. If approved, the first target would likely be Honduras.

Observers of events in the region believe that the U.S. would support a UN Security Council Resolution against the constitutional government of Honduras.

There is something obscene about a U.S. President opposing the peaceful and lawful transition of power in Honduras while favoring the OAS reinstatement Communist Cuba.

But that’s what you get when the first Marxist President of America makes policy.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center – he blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com .

 Is China a danger to the world? This is a topic I have wanted to write about for some time. I suspect my motivation for writing this comes from being sent to Vietnam [...]]]>

 Is China a danger to the world? This is a topic I have wanted to write about for some time. I suspect my motivation for writing this comes from being sent to Vietnam to fight in a war that took place because an American president lied. That lie cost millions of lives and damaged more who still live.

Warning: This is a long post with many facts, “food” for thought, and those who have short attention spans with little patience for anything (unless it is watching sports like football, basketball or baseball on television or programs like American Idol) that takes longer than ten-minutes should leave now. The idea for this post is to get people thinking, and to do critical thinking requires knowledge and facts about the subject. Gathering that kind of information takes time. After teaching American children for thirty years, I suspect the audience for this piece will be small.

A conservative, evangelical Christian friend of mine recently said if China tried something with its military that was against America’s interests, the United States would give China a good spanking.  Why would he say this? The only war America fought against the PLA (People’s Liberation Army) was in Korea and that wasn’t even a war, it was considered a United Nations police action and no one won.

In fact, North Korea (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-39913120090527 ) is still causing trouble, and since Mao’s death, China usually sides with the rest of the world on issues concerning North Korea and attempts to resolve issues without violence. A war in North Korea would not be in China’s interests.

Another fact to consider is that China has had ties with Korea for centuries and when China entered the Korean Conflict, one of the reasons was that Mao felt China would be next if he did nothing. The same logic applied to the Vietnam Conflict. Mao said that Vietnam was the gums protecting China’s teeth, and he sent advisors to help the North Vietnamese Communists. None of them returned.

The first information piece is from the AP about North Korea.

___________________________________________________________________________

US admiral: NKorea threats could spark arms race

By Foster Klug, Associated Press Writer Foster Klug, Associated Press Writer – Thu Jul 9, 1:26 pm ET

WASHINGTON – “President Barack Obama’s choice to lead U.S. forces in the Pacific warned Thursday that North Korea’s missile and nuclear threats could spark an arms race in Asia.

“Admiral Robert Willard also told senators at his confirmation hearing that China’s huge military buildup remains a serious worry for the U.S. military. …

(Several paragraphs later, Klug returns to the topic of China.)

“On China, Willard spoke of “major concerns” about the uncertainty surrounding Beijing’s development of advanced weapons that are “beyond what is required for its national defense.” He said he would pursue “careful, measured military engagement” with China to reduce the chance of miscalculation and to press for transparency on military spending.

“China and the U.S. have recently resumed military consultations after Beijing suspended talks in anger over American arms sales to Taiwan, the self-ruled island that China claims as part of its territory.

Next, a comparison between American and China with lots of facts, ‘food’ for thought:

Source: www.Globalfirepower.com

United States:
PERSONNEL
Total Population: 303,824,640 [2008]
Population Available: 144,354,117 [2008]
Fit for Military Service: 118,600,541 [2008]
Reaching Military Age Annually: 4,266,128 [2008]
Active Military Personnel: 1,385,122 [2008]
Active Military Reserve: 1,458,500 [2008]
America’s Total Active Military = 2,843,122 or .94% percent of the population of the United States.

Active Paramilitary Units: 453,000 [2008]

ARMY
Total Land-Based Weapons: 29,920
Towed Artillery: 5,178 [2001]

NAVY
Total Navy Ships: 1,559
Merchant Marine Strength: 422 [2008]
Major Ports and Harbors: 10
Aircraft Carriers: 12 [2008]
Destroyers: 50 [2008]
Submarines: 75 [2008]
Frigates: 92 [2008]
Patrol & Coastal Craft: 100 [2008]
Mine Warfare Craft: 28 [2008]
Amphibious Craft: 38 [2008]

AIR FORCE
Total Aircraft: 18,169 [2003]
Helicopters: 4,593 [2003]
Serviceable Airports: 14,947 [2007]

FINANCES (USD)
Defense Budget: $515,400,000,000 [2009]
Foreign Exch. & Gold: $70,570,000,000 [2007]
Purchasing Power: $13,780,000,000,000 [2007]

America’s Defense Budget is 3.74 percent of  total purchasing power, four-and-a-half times that of China.

Communist China:
PERSONNEL
Total Population: 1,330,044,544 [2008]
Population Available: 729,323,673 [2008]
Fit for Military Service: 609,273,077 [2008]
Reaching Military Age Annually: 20,470,412 [2008]
Active Military Personnel: 2,255,000 [2008]
Active Military Reserve: 800,000 [2008]
China’s Total Active Military = 3,055,000 or .22 percent of the population of the China
Active Paramilitary Units: 3,969,000 [2008]

ARMY
Total Land-Based Weapons: 31,300
Tanks: 8,200 [2004]
Armored Personnel Carriers: 5,000 [2004]
Towed Artillery: 14,000 [2004]
Self-Propelled Guns: 1,700 [2004]
Multiple Rocket Launch Systems: 2,400 [2004]
Mortars: 16,000 [2001]
Anti-Tank Guided Weapons: 6,500 [2004]
Anti-Aircraft Weapons: 7,700 [2004]

NAVY
Total Navy Ships: 760
Merchant Marine Strength: 1,822 [2008]
Major Ports and Harbors: 8
Aircraft Carriers: 1 [2010]
Destroyers: 21 [2004]
Submarines: 68 [2004]
Frigates: 42 [2004]
Patrol & Coastal Craft: 368 [2004]
Mine Warfare Craft: 39 [2004]
Amphibious Craft: 121 [2004]

AIR FORCE
Total Aircraft: 1,900 [2004]
Helicopters: 491 [2004]
Serviceable Airports: 467 [2007]

FINANCES (USD)
Defense Budget: $59,000,000,000 [2008]
Foreign Exch. & Gold: $1,534,000,000,000 [2007]
Purchasing Power: $7,099,000,000,000 [2007]

China’s Defense Budget is .83% (less than one) percent of  total purchasing power.

America’s Wars
Primary Source: Department of Veterans Affairs

American Revolution (1775-1783)
Total Service members …………………………….217,000

Battle Deaths ………………………………………………4,435

Non-mortal Woundings…………………………………6,188

War of 1812 (1812-1815)
Total Service members……………………………..286,730
Battle Deaths…………………………..2,260
Non-mortal Woundings…………….4,505

Indian Wars (approx. 1817-1898)
Total Service members…………………..106,000
Battle Deaths……………………………………1,000

Secondary source:Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?

By Guenter Lewy

Guenter Lewy, who for many years taught political science at the University of Massachusetts, has been a contributor to Commentary since 1964. His books include The Catholic Church & Nazi Germany, Religion & Revolution, America in Vietnam, and The Cause that Failed: Communism in American Political Life

http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html

Mexican War (1846-1848)
Total Service members……………………………….78,718
Battle Deaths……………………………………………..1,733
Other Deaths in Service………………………………11,550
Non-mortal Woundings…………………………………4,152

Civil War (1861-1865)
Total U.S. Service members (Union)…………..2,213,363
Battle Deaths (Union)…………………………………..140,414
Other Deaths (In Theater) (Union)…………………224,097
Non-mortal Woundings (Union)…………………….281,881
Total Service members (Conf.) (note 2) ……….1,050,000
Battle Deaths (Confederate) (note 3) ………………..74,524
Other Deaths (In Theater) (Confed.) (note 3, 4)….59,297 
Non-mortal Woundings (Confed.) ……………..Unknown

Spanish-American War (1898-1902)
Total Service members (Worldwide)……………..306,760
Battle Deaths…………………………………………………….385
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater)……………..2,061
Non-mortal Woundings…………………………………..1,662

Secondary source since this war was not listed with the primary:
Philippine-American War (1899-1902)
CASUALTY FIGURES:
U.S.– 4,234 dead and 2,818 wounded.
Philippines– 20,000 military dead and 200,000 civilian dead. (approximate numbers). Some historians place the numbers of civilian dead at 500,000 or higher.
http://www.historyguy.com/PhilipineAmericanwar.html

World War I (1917-1918)
Total Service members (Worldwide)……………4,734,991
Battle Deaths…………………………………………………53,402
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater)…………….63,114
Non-mortal Woundings…………………………………204,002
Living Veterans……………………………………………………..1

World War II (1941-1945)
Total Service members (Worldwide)………….16,112,566
Battle Deaths……………………………………………….291,557
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater)…………..113,842
Non-mortal Woundings…………………………………671,846
Living Veterans (note 5)……………………………..2,306,000

Korean War (1950-1953)
Total Service members (Worldwide)…………..5,720,000
Battle Deaths………………………………………………..33,741
Other Deaths (In Theater)………………………………..2,833
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater)……………17,672
Non-mortal Woundings………………………………..103,284
Living Veterans………………………………………..2,307,000

Vietnam War (1964-1975)
Total Service members (Worldwide) (note 6)….8,744,000
Deployed to Southeast Asia (note 7) ……………..3,403,000
Battle Deaths (note 8)……………………………………….47,424
Other Deaths (In Theater) (note 8) …………………….10,785
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater) (note 8) ….32,000
Non-mortal Woundings (note 9)……………………….153,303
Living Veterans (note 5, 10)………………………….7,125,000

Secondary Source: The lowest casualty estimates, based on the now-renounced North Vietnamese statements, are around 1.5 million Vietnamese killed. Vietnam released figures on April 3, 1995 that a total of one million Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians were killed in the war. (Source: http://www.vietnam-war.info/casualties/ )

Desert Shield/Desert Storm (1990-1991)
Total Servicemembers (Worldwide)…………..2,322,000
Deployed to Gulf………………………………………..694,550
Battle Deaths……………………………………………………147
Other Deaths (In Theater)…………………………………..235
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater)……………..1,590
Non-mortal Woundings………………………………………467
Living Veterans (note 5, 10)……………………….2,269,000

America’s Wars Total   
U.S. Military Service During War……………..41,891,368

Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century

China’s Wars and Rebellions (Conflicts Hi-Lighted in Yellow are wars that were mostly invasions by foreign powers. The rest are rebellions—you may find it interesting that there is a history going back centuries of Muslim rebellions in China’s northwest, Xianjiang)

Nuclear Weapons

• United States: 10,240 weapons
• Russia (formerly the Soviet Union): 8,400 weapons
• People’s Republic of China: 390 weapons
• France: 350 weapons
• United Kingdom: 200-300 weapons
• India 60-90 weapons
• Pakistan 30-52 weapons
• North Korea 0-18 weapons

Source: http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Nuclear_powers )

Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34^th President of the United States warned America. “Before he left office in January 1961, from his farm in Gettysburg, he urged the necessity of maintaining an adequate military strength, but cautioned that vast, long-continued military expenditures could breed potential dangers to our way of life. He concluded with a prayer for peace “in the goodness of time.” Both themes remained timely and urgent when he died, after a long illness, on March 28, 1969. http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/DwightDEisenhower/

Here’s the link to a copy of President Eisenhower’s Military-Industrial Complex Speech,  1961 http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

A military strategy to match peaceful rise

By Chen Zhou (China Daily)
Updated: 2008-05-16 07:40 From China: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2008-05/16/content_6689612.htm

 China
PERCEPTION OF THREAT
In the late 1980s, China viewed the Soviet Union as its principal military opponent. Simmering border disputes with Vietnam and India were perceived as lesser threats to security. China’s burgeoning opening up policy, its claims to the Xisha (Paracel) and Nansha (Spratly) Islands, and the presence of offshore oil deposits made the South China Sea an area in which Beijing saw potential threats to its interests. Finally, although it did not regard Taiwan as a military threat, China nevertheless refused to rule out the use of force as a means of achieving reunification with Taiwan.

The Soviet Union
Despite common ideological roots, considerable Soviet assistance in the past, and warming relations since 1982, China in 1987 regarded the Soviet Union’s military strength and foreign policy as the major threat to its security. Tensions in relations between the two countries had begun to escalate in the mid-1950s (see Sino-Soviet Relations , ch. 12). The 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia and the buildup of Soviet forces in the Soviet Far East raised Chinese suspicions of Soviet intentions. Sharp border clashes between Soviet and Chinese troops occurred in 1969, roughly a decade after relations between the two countries had begun to deteriorate and some four years after a buildup of Soviet forces along China’s northern border had begun. Particularly heated border clashes occurred in the northeast along the Sino-Soviet border formed by the Heilong Jiang (Amur River) and the Wusuli Jiang (Ussuri River), on which China claimed the right to navigate (see fig. 3). Border provocations occasionally recurred in later years–for example, in May 1978 when Soviet troops in boats and a helicopter intruded into Chinese territory–but major armed clashes were averted.

In the late 1970s, China decried what it perceived as a Soviet attempt to encircle it as the military buildup continued in the Soviet Far East and the Soviet Union signed friendship treaties with Vietnam and Afghanistan. In April 1979 Beijing notified Moscow that the thirty-year Treaty of Friendship, Alliance, and Mutual Assistance–under which the Soviets aided the PLA in its 1950s modernization–would not be renewed. Negotiations on improving Sino-Soviet relations were begun in 1979, but China ended them when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan late that year. In 1982 China and the Soviet Union resumed negotiations on normalizing relations. Although agreements on trade, science and technology, and culture were signed, political ties remained frozen because of Chinese insistence that the Soviet Union remove the three obstacles to improved Sino-Soviet relations. Although Chinese leaders publicly professed not to be concerned, the Soviet base at Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam, Soviet provision of MiG-23 fighters to North Korea, and Soviet acquisition of overflight and port calling rights from North Korea intensified Chinese apprehension about the Soviet threat. Soviet Communist Party General Secretary Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s 1986 offer to withdraw some troops from Afghanistan and the Mongolian People’s Republic (Mongolia) were seen by Beijing as a cosmetic gesture that did not lessen the threat to China.

China
Economic Roles of the People’s Liberation Army

The PLA played a role in economic development practically from its inception. Beginning in the late 1930s and early 1940s, when the party was headquartered in Yan’an, the Red Army raised its own food. After 1949 the PLA became involved in economic reconstruction tasks–building railroads and factories, reclaiming wasteland, digging irrigation canals, establishing state farms, and participating in disaster relief operations. The PLA accepted its role as a force in economic construction and devoted segments of its structure, such as the Engineering Corps, Railway Engineering Corps, Capital Construction Engineering Corps, Signal Corps, and Production and Construction Corps, to building up the national infrastructure. However, PLA regional- and main-force units played a much smaller role in aiding the civilian economy.

This pattern continued into the 1980s. The PLA remained self-sufficient in food, participated in selective infrastructure development projects, and aided in disaster relief. From 1981 to 1985, the PLA contributed 110 million workdays to 44,500 construction projects, including the diversion of river water from the Luan He to Tianjin, construction of the Shengli oilfield in Shandong Province and the Huolinhe open-cut coal mine in Shaanxi Province, expansion of Zhanjiang port in Guangdong Province, and afforestation work involving the planting of 290 million trees.

The PLA contributed to economic development in two additional ways. First, in November 1984 the government decided to transfer some military facilities to civilian control or joint militarycivilian use. These facilities included airfields, ports, docks, railroads, depots and warehouses, and recreational areas. The devolution of these facilities to civilian control helped to alleviate problems that plagued the civilian economy. Second, beginning in the late 1970s, the PLA operated a large-scale program of dual-use training, whereby PLA personnel learned skills useful to the growing economy. Under this program, officers and soldiers received military training and training in specialized skills, such as livestock breeding, cultivation, processing, construction, machine maintenance, repair of domestic appliances, motor vehicle repair, and driving. In 1986 the PLA trained more than 650,000 soldiers in 25,000 training courses at over 6,000 training centers. In early 1987 surveys indicated that over 70 percent of demobilized PLA personnel left the armed forces with skills they could use as civilians.
Data as of July 1987
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+cn0390)

Chinese military officer praises army for quake relief efforts
www.chinaview.cn 2008-05-31 11:51:40
Special report: Reconstruction After Earthquake
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-05/31/content_8288931.htm

1. How many times has the United States been invaded by foreign countries? Answer: twice by Britain, the Revolution (if we count that as in invasion since Britain ruled America at the time) and the War of 1812.
2. How many rebellions did the United States have: Answer: maybe twice (one against Britain, which the United States won, and one against the thirteen Southern States during the Civil war, which the Confederacy lost)
3. How many times has China been invaded by foreign countries?Answer: More than twenty since 1800 (This many invasions would be strong motivation for keeping a large military force.)
4. How many rebellions has China dealt with? Answer: More than twenty-five (With this many rebellions going back to 1800, it would seem to be a good idea to have a large active military.)
5. What would America do if a hostile foreign nation like Russia, Iran, or North Korea invaded Mexico or Canada?
6. What do you think is the real reason the Western Media spends so much time pointing out that China has a huge military? 
7. How many nuclear weapons does China have?
8. What about the Unites States?

9.      How many nuclear weapons does it take to destroy the world once?
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Regional-Nuclear-War-Would-Destroy-the-World-82760.shtml

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1997/00/00_babst_consequences.htm

https://courses.washington.edu/hypertxt/cgi-bin/students.washington.edu/princesa/281/nuclearbombs.html
10. What are American interests (you may want to do a Google search for this question)?
http://www.the-american-interest.com/

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=1778

http://americasinterests.blogspot.com/

In the more than four decades of the Cold War following World War Two, a cadre of specialists called “Kremlinologists”, academics, diplomats, and military, developed for the purpose of figuring out what the Soviet Union was doing and how best to counteract it. As often [...]]]> Iran’s Mullahs Threaten the World

By Alan Caruba

In the more than four decades of the Cold War following World War Two, a cadre of specialists called “Kremlinologists”, academics, diplomats, and military, developed for the purpose of figuring out what the Soviet Union was doing and how best to counteract it. As often as not, they were wrong. The fall of the Berlin War came as a surprise to them, followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Now we are watching the same thing occur as various “experts” struggle to tell us what is happening in Iran and why.

What I really want to know is why the President of the United States thought it best not to “meddle” with a nation that had taken American diplomats hostage for 444 days, was funding two Middle East terrorists organizations, Hezbollah and Hamas, and striving mightily to become a nuclear power with which to threaten their region and the world.

President Obama’s muted and belated response to the protests in the streets of Tehran by thousands of Iranians was a national and international disgrace. If America will not speak out boldly for liberty and support a popular uprising for democracy, who will?

My friend, Amil Imani, an Iranian-American who has forcefully spoken out for regime change in his former homeland, has posted a petition calling for an end to the slaughter of Iranians who only want what we in America and the West have, freedom.

You can add your name at http://www.petitiononline.com/ai2d2009/petition.html

Addressed to the leaders of the free world, the citizens of the world, and even to the Secretary-General of the useless United Nations, Imani states what we all know. “The mullahs and their mercenaries are wasting precious human life to maintain themselves in power through terrorizing the population.”

Islam is not about democracy. It is a political system called a theocracy. The clerics rule and, in effect, they only answer to Allah. Turkey, an Islamic nation, has maintained secular rule by splitting off Islam from governance. Other Islamic nations hold “elections” but it is understood by their citizens that they frequently are rigged, that those who rule them, secular or not, are corrupt, and protest gets you put in jail or dead.

One Middle Eastern nation that fashioned a working democracy, Lebanon, has been struggling for decades to throw off the dictators that would rule them, whether it is Syria or Hezbollah, a terrorist group of Palestinian terrorists whose sole purpose is the destruction of Israel.

Imani’s petition calls on “the free governments of the world, as well as all other businesses, organizations, and individuals to enlist in a non-violent campaign of ending the reign of terror of the belligerent clerical regime.”

Towards that end he seeks to protect the lives of Iranians through “a comprehensive program of assistance to all democratic Iranian opposition groups, both inside and outside of Iran, in their struggle to accomplish the regime change themselves.”

“Proclaim wide and far, the cardinal reason for taking these measures against the mullah’s reign of terror is to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons, the threat they pose to the region as well as the world, and the stimulus they provide for other nations to develop their own nuclear arsenal..”

There are a number of other proposals in the petition which I urge you to read and sign, but the issue to my mind is the failure of the United States, that is to say our President, to demonstrate any understanding of the fact that one cannot “negotiate” with a “Supreme Leader” intent on having nuclear weapons with which to threaten the region and the world.

That “Supreme Leader” and his minions subscribe to a Shiite myth of a “Twelfth Imam” who can only return to rule the Earth after widespread death and destruction has paved the way.

Little known and underreported have been the discussions underway between Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia as to “strategic” actions they can take to secure the safety of their nations and to bring down the Iranian regime before it achieves nuclear status. Let me repeat that roster. Israel. Egypt. And Saudi Arabia.

America has the misfortune to be led by a President who has been fixated before and since election on a diplomatic resolution to the enmity between Iran and America. He apparently thinks he can talk them out of securing nuclear weapons. That is never going to happen. Israel knows this. Egypt knows this. And Saudi Arabia knows this.

Obama’s willful ignorance and personal arrogance is going to keep the Iranian people enslaved and get a lot of people in the region and beyond killed.

The Iranian mullahs are a pestilence that must be eradicated and removed from power. History teaches this lesson. A nation’s sovereignty is not an excuse to permit its leaders to plunge the world into war.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com . He blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com .

The one, though, that the Obama administration and the whole of the [...]]]> The Democracy Next Door to Iran

By Alan Caruba

There are ample reasons why the predominantly young population of Iran has risen up to denounce “the Dictator” otherwise known as the “Supreme Leader”, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his thuggish, incompetent regime.

The one, though, that the Obama administration and the whole of the nation’s mainstream media have overlooked or ignored is the fact that Iran’s neighbor, Iraq, is a functioning democratic state that has held elections safely and without strife for some time now.

Iraq’s citizens, who suffered grievously for three decades under the rule of Saddam Hussein, have now joined much of the rest of the world by virtue of George W. Bush’s conscious decision to transform that nation and, by extension, the Middle East by force of arms.

President Obama campaigned successfully by attacking the Iraq War and promising to remove U.S. troops as quickly as possible. By some strange contortion of foreign policy, he announced that Afghanistan was “the new front” in a war on global Islamic terrorism whose name he will not speak. Most people understand that the real front is now in Pakistan, long a place of refuge for al Qaeda and the Taliban that are threatening its fragile government.

President Obama has finally articulated a more vigorous response to the Iranian effort to cast off the rule of the mullahs, but his first tepid instinct failed not only the courageous Iranians in the streets, but the history of our nation that has always supported freedom in the face of tyranny.

It is the democratic example of Iraq that is transforming the Middle East in ways we cannot begin to predict, but surely the revolution taking place in Iran is a sign of its success.

The era of the Middle East’s oppressive regimes, of ayatollahs and monarchies, of juntas, and of Palestinian militias armed by the Iranian regime, is on shaky ground in this new century.

The world has made impressive strides toward freedom since the cataclysm of World War Two. Two major nations, Russia and China, are being forced by globalization to extend greater freedom to their people. Africa, however, is likely to remain mired in oppression and poverty for the foreseeable future.

Europe has expanded its membership of free nations since the fall of the Soviet Union. With the exception of Cuba and Venezuela, Central and South America remains free.

It is not too soon to examine President Obama’s Middle East policy.

President Obama has virtually surrendered America’s traditional role of opposing tyranny. At a time when Islamo-fascism is the greatest threat to Western civilization, Obama went to Turkey and to Cairo to apologize for America’s effort to spread and support democracy, claiming an Islamic heritage in America that never existed.

His first six months in office have been a succession of criticisms of America.

His initial response to the Iranian street protests of a rigged election was a promise that America would not “meddle” in Iran’s affairs. It took him a few days to offer a carefully-worded criticism of the mullah’s brutal efforts to suppress the will of the people.

Obama is seeking to set free the worst enemies of the nation and the world from Guantanamo. Few other nations want to participate in this effort. He has halted military tribunals. He ordered overseas interrogation centers be closed. He withdrew charges against the mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole.

On June 21, H.R. 1388 was passed in the House of Representatives; an Obama administration plan to allocate $20.3 million in “migration assistance” to Hamas “refugees”, Palestinians who would be assisted to resettle in the United States!

He has facilitated this with an earlier executive order, opening the doors to Gaza’s “conflict victims.” And he has publicly rebuked Israel for building settlements to house its own growing population.

The Palestinians are not “conflict victims.” For sixty years they have been the initiators of conflict with Israel. Do we really want Hamas in the United States? This legislation must be defeated in the Senate.

While Americans are distracted by our economic troubles, we cannot give President Obama a free pass to ignore the freedom movement in Iran, to ease restrictions on Cuba, or to do nothing to stop the flow of illegal aliens across our southern border.

There are things he could be doing if he wanted to support freedom in Iran. He could authorize a clandestine program to assist the dissidents. He could lead a coalition of nations in demanding that the mullahs step aside, and to support a call that Iran’s constitution be re-written to rid it of its seventh century chokehold on democracy. He could offer leadership, but he has not and he will not.

He is shaming America while insisting on a new “crisis” every week for which he insists only the borrowing, taxing, and spending of untold trillions is the answer. He is doing everything in his power to impoverish Americans for decades to come.

Obama can no longer blame George W. Bush because the history unfolding before our eyes demonstrates that our former President was right.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com . He blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com .