The Jake Files

April 18, 2006

Iran to Ensure Nuclear Disarmament for Everyone Else

Is this a joke?  Where's the hidden camera?

 Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) – Under threat of United Nations Security Council sanctions for its own nuclear program, Iran has been elected to a vice-chair position on the U.N. Disarmament Commission, whose mission includes deliberations on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.
(snip)

On Monday, former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said that his country would continue to enrich uranium, and dismissed the idea that the U.S. might attack nuclear facilities in Iran.

"We are certain that Americans will not attack Iran because the consequences would be too dangerous," Rafasanjani was quoted as telling the Kuwaiti parliament.

Dr. Dore Gold, former Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. said that electing Iran to a leadership position on the UN Disarmament Commission was like asking the "cat to guard the milk."

"Clearly the Iranians have an interest in establishing disarmament rules that protect their clandestine nuclear weapons program," said Gold, author of Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos.
(hat tip Infinite Monkeys)

Is this some strange dream sequence that we'll wake up from at the end of the season?  What is going on here?

If there was EVER a thought that the United Nations was not a corruption-ridden, toothless organization that props up thugs and dictators everywhere, this must surely be the sign that will convince America that we should cease cooperation with this useless body.  I expect non-stop coverage on CNN, MSNBC, 60 Minutes, Jon Stewart, and Oprah.  Right after the Tom Cruise Eats Katie's Placenta story or the new suspect in the Natalie Holloway disappearance story. 

Come to think of it, I'm probably expecting too much.

Advertisements

April 9, 2006

Mainstream Media Hysteria on Iranian Nuclear Contingency Planning

From the UK's Telegraph:

The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts.

President George W Bush is said to be so alarmed by the threat of Iran's hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, that privately he refers to him as "the new Hitler", says Seymour Hersh, who broke the story of the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.

Some US military chiefs have unsuccessfully urged the White House to drop the nuclear option from its war plans, Hersh writes in The New Yorker magazine. The conviction that Mr Ahmedinejad would attack Israel or US forces in the Middle East, if Iran obtains atomic weapons, is what drives American planning for the destruction of Teheran's nuclear programme.

Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One alleged target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, 200 miles south of Teheran.

This has been all over the Sunday morning news shows.  Seymour Hersch is on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer right now talking about it.

Can I just ask a simple question here?  Does anyone seriously think that we do not have a detailed plan to invade, bomb, or strike with nukes, every single nation on earth?  That's what our military planners do – they make plans for any contingency. 

It would be grossly negligent if we DID NOT have plans to nuke, bomb conventionally, or invade by land, Iran or any other country.  Anyone who fails to realize that, or ignores the fact in favor of a good hysteria story, demonstrates just how little they understand national security issues.

March 11, 2006

Military Robo-dog in development

Filed under: General,Middle East,Military,War on Terror — Amazing Jake @ 12:10 pm

This is pretty cool.

Meet BigDog, a mechanical mutt that does more than snare Frisbees and irrigate fire hydrants. It totes hundreds of pounds of gear so soldiers won’t have to, and it will never spook under fire. Developed by Boston Dynamics with funding from the U.S. military, the BigDog prototype is arguably the world’s most ambitious legged robot. Its stability and awareness of its own orientation make it the first robot that can handle the unknown challenges of the battlefield. The Great Dane–size ’bot can trot more than three miles an hour, climb inclines of up to 45 degrees, and carry up to 120 pounds—even in rough terrain impenetrable to wheeled or tracked vehicles. But this one is just a puppy; Boston Dynamics expects the next iteration, ready this summer, to be at least twice as fast and carry more than twice as much.

Click the link in the article to see video of the robo-dog in action.  Maybe they can mount a chain gun on the front and have it root out terrorists in the caves of Afghanistan.  Let’s just hope that Skynet doesn’t get a hold of it.

February 27, 2006

Standing Up to Cartoon Violence

Filed under: Cartoon Intifada,France,Middle East,Old Europe,War on Terror — Amazing Jake @ 12:19 am

Public officials in two corners of the Anglosphere are publicly stating the obvious:  Western societies are nations of laws, and there is no room in a modern liberal democracy for Sharia law.

From the BBC:

Sir Trevor told ITV1’s Jonathan Dimbleby programme: “What some minorities have to accept is that there are certain central things we all agree about, which are about the way we treat each other.

“That we have an attachment to democracy, that we sort things out by voting not by violence and intimidation, that we tolerate things that we don’t like.”

And that commitment to freedom of expression should also allow Muslim preachers to make comments about homosexuality that are offensive to broad segments of the British population, he said.

Trafalgar Square  

There were several large protests held in London over the cartoons

“One point of Britishness is that people can say what they like about the way we should live, however absurd, however unpopular it is,” said Sir Trevor.

He also rejected the idea of Shariah law in Muslim communities in the UK.

“We have one set of laws. They are decided on by one group of people, members of Parliament, and that’s the end of the story.

“Anybody who lives here has to accept that’s the way we do it. If you want to have laws decided in another way, you have to live somewhere else,” he said.

From news.com.au:

ANYONE who believes Islamic sharia law can co-exist with Australian law should move to a country where they feel more comfortable, Treasurer Peter Costello said today.

All Australian citizens must adhere to the framework in society which maintains tolerance and protects the rights and liberties of all, he said. It is a pre-condition for citizenship of Australia.

Mr Costello was giving a speech on the meaning of Australian citizenship to the Sydney Institute.

“There is one law we are all expected to abide by,” Mr Costello said.

“It is the law enacted by the Parliament under the Australian Constitution.

“If you can’t accept that, then you don’t accept the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for.”

Mr Costello, the son of a Methodist lay preacher and who was raised a Baptist, emphasised that Australia is a secular state under which the freedom of all religions is protected.

“But there is not a separate stream of law derived from religious sources that competes with or supplants Australian law in governing our civil society,” he said.

“The source of our law is the democratically elected legislature.

Mark Steyn wrote another great column yesterday in the Chicago Sun-TimesPowerline and Instapundit both commented on the murders of Jews in France, by Muslims, and the recent demonstrations there against violence. 

Somthing different in Steyn’s column struck me:

Something very remarkable is happening around the globe and, if you want the short version, a Muslim demonstrator in Toronto the other day put it very well:

”We won’t stop the protests until the world obeys Islamic law.”

Stated that baldly it sounds ridiculous. But, simply as a matter of fact, every year more and more of the world lives under Islamic law: Pakistan adopted Islamic law in 1977, Iran in 1979, Sudan in 1984. Four decades ago, Nigeria lived under English common law; now, half of it’s in the grip of sharia, and the other half’s feeling the squeeze, as the death toll from the cartoon jihad indicates. But just as telling is how swiftly the developed world has internalized an essentially Islamic perspective. In their pitiful coverage of the low-level intifada that’s been going on in France for five years, the European press has been barely any less loopy than the Middle Eastern media.

It’s a good thing that this is breaking into the news in France, and presumably Europe at large.  But what they’re not doing is talking openly about the problem, which is what Mr. Costello in Australia and Sir Trevor of the UK are now doing.  There has been a low level intifada going on in France for years now, and no one wants to admit the reason why:  Muslim immigrants do not want to integrate with France or Europe, they want their own set of rules.  And when there are conflicts involving Muslim immigrants and Western ways, no one wants to be politically incorrect and admit that the source of the problem is often because the Muslims have clashed with Western values.  And there you have the cartoon intifada in all its glory.

February 21, 2006

President Promises Veto if UAE Ports Deal Blocked by Congress

From the AP

“After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward,” Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. “I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We’ll treat you fairly.'”

Bush took the rare step of calling reporters to his conference room on the plane after returning from a speech in Colorado, addressing a controversy that is becoming a major headache for the White House. He said the seaports arrangement had been extensively examined by the administration and was “a legitimate deal that will not jeopardize the security of the country.”

I find this development highly disturbing.

In five years, President Bush has not vetoed a single bill.  Not a spending bill authorizing a several-hundred million dollar Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska.  Not one.  Not anything.

Now he threatens to protect a deal with a company OWNED BY the United Arab Emirates, a known haven of terrorists?  This is not the time to play nice with our allies in Arab countries that support the War on Terror.  I fully understand the political consequences of halting a sale to an ally that is providing active assistance in our terrorism fight.  I don’t understand why the White House doesn’t understand the political consequences of appearing to give an opening to those who want to kill us.

I can imagine a scenario in which Al Qaeda operatives gain access to the country through this company.  There may well be safeguards in place to prevent it, but the White House has not explained what they are.  The White House has not explained why this is a good deal for national security.  The White House has not explained why it will NOT be possible for a terrorist to use this company as a gateway to operating against us.  And until they do, I think the President has a serious problem.

Really, the President’s going to go to the mattresses over protecting a company from the Mideast when he won’t secure our borders or veto outrageous spending bills?  Is this a joke?

UPDATE:  Hugh Hewitt interviewed Senator Frist today on Hugh’s radio show, and indicated an override of the promised veto is possible.  This is a potentially embarrassing and damaging development for the President, and he needs to get on the right side of this issue in a hurry.  Based on this story, it doesn’t seem likely.  Duane has a transcript of Hugh’s interview here

February 10, 2006

French Unilateralism

Filed under: France,Middle East,Military,Old Europe — Amazing Jake @ 7:11 am

So, did France get Security Council approval for this?

France has secretly modified its nuclear arsenal to increase the strike range and accuracy of its weapons. The move comes weeks after President Jacques Chirac warned that states which threatened the country could face the “ultimate warning” of a nuclear retaliation.

I predict mass protests by peace activists and environmental activists against this naked show of agression.  Well, maybe not.

February 9, 2006

Kinder, Gentler Commander in Chief?

Filed under: Cartoon Intifada,Middle East,War on Terror — Amazing Jake @ 11:22 pm

I’m not sure how I feel about this development

Bush commented alongside King Abdullah II of Jordan at the White House. Abdullah, too, called for protests to be peaceful, but he also spoke against ridicule of Islam’s holiest figure.

Islam is interpreted to forbid any illustrations of Muhammad for fear they could lead to idolatry.

“With all respect to press freedoms, obviously anything that vilifies the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, or attacks Muslim sensibilities, I believe, needs to be condemned,” he said.

I think this message was designed as a soundbite for Muslim audiences.  The White House was eager to show to the Muslim world that the United States is respectful of Islam and their prophet, while at the same time, on the same day, the Secretary of State is saying some pretty inflammatory things directed to the local state sponsors of terrorism.  While I’m not sure how I feel about the leader of my country making the reverential statement “peace be upon him,” I think the tactic was well thought out.  Hopefully Al Jazeera picked it up.

 

Laying the Diplomatic Smackdown on Terrorist Regimes

Filed under: Cartoon Intifada,Middle East,War on Terror — Amazing Jake @ 11:13 pm

Sec of State Condi Rice, laying the smackdown on Wednesday to Iran and Syria:

Mr. Bush, in an Oval Office meeting with King Abdullah II of Jordan, said, “We reject violence as a way to express discontent over what is printed in the free press.” Hours later, Ms. Rice delivered a far more pointed message, saying that Iran “hasn’t even hidden its hand in this.” “Iran and Syria have gone out of their way to inflame sentiments and to use this to their own purposes,” she said. “And the world ought to call them on it.”

That was such undiplomatic language for a Secretary of State, and I love it.  Give us more.

Blog at WordPress.com.