About Me

Name:
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Bomb Blast In Turkey: 21 Wounded, and Believed Kurdish In Origin

Posted by on Monday, August 28, 2006 1:13:22 AM
 Yahoo News has an AP wire report of a bombing in Turkey:

A bomb blast blew apart a minibus in a Turkish tourist resort late Sunday injuring 21 people including 10 British tourists, the local police chief said.

The explosion was in the popular Mediterranean resort town of Marmaris. There were two other bomb blasts at the same time in garbage cans on the main boulevard in Marmaris, the state-owned Anatolia news agency reported. The area is lined with bars, clubs, cafes and restaurants. There were no reports of injuries in those blasts.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the blast. Kurdish guerrillas have in the past carried out such attacks against tourist resorts.

Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office said that 10 Britons were injured in the explosions, according to a report from the British news agency Press Association.

Police chief Emin Korpe of Mugla province, where Marmaris is located, said 21 people were injured in the blast, including 10 British tourists and 11 Turks, the private Dogan news agency reported. Korpe said one of the injured was in serious condition, but gave no further details.

None of the injured had life-threatening injuries, Anatolia reported. Gov. Temel Kocaklar of Mugla said nine of the injured were released from hospital following treatment, the state-run Anatolia news agency reported.

Dogan quoted local Governor Cemalettin Ozdemir as saying that the bomb was placed under a seat in the bus.

"We will capture the culprits and bring them before the public as soon as possible," Kocaklar said.

The Mediterranean coast is extremely popular with millions of European tourists who flock to Turkey during the summer months.

Police immediately boosted security in the area and set up roadblocks outside of the city.

Earlier Sunday, a bomb blast in a low-income neighborhood of Istanbul injured six people, police said.

The explosion in the Bagcilar district occurred near the local governor's office and police said they suspected that Kurdish militants were behind the explosion. One of the injured was reported to be in critical condition.

In 2005, Kurdish guerrillas bombed a minibus in the Aegean resort town of Kusadasi killing five people and injuring 13 others. The dead included a British woman and an Irish teenager.

Turkish officials are looking to radical Kurds as the people who carried out this attack. I'm apt to agree unless there is evidence uncovered between now and tomorrow. This has signs of al Qaeda in it, but al Qaeda looks for a death toll. No one died, and the bombs didn't exact the damage that is usually accompanying an al Qaeda attack. And, as yet, no one's claimed responsibility for this. Al Qaeda is prompt in doing that, but nothing revealed from Turkey yet shows that al Qaeda had a hand in this.

But this does present another problem in Iraq for the new government. They can't afford to get dragged into another conflict. They're still trying to maintain semblance and order in Iraq; a fight with Turkey is the last thing that's needed. The government in Iraq needs to get a grip on the Kurds before they do start a serious shooting war.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Any Doubt Where The UN's Loyalties Lie Now?

Posted by on Sunday, August 27, 2006 5:36:04 PM
 We make no mystery about how we feel about the UN. It's an ineffectual, incompetant, corrupt organization who's time has come and gone more times than I can count. And Lori Marcus' new piece in the Weekly Standardgives us one more reason to despise the UN:

DURING THE RECENT month-long war between Hezbollah and Israel, U.N. "peacekeeping" forces made a startling contribution: They openly published daily real-time intelligence, of obvious usefulness to Hezbollah, on the location, equipment, and force structure of Israeli troops in Lebanon.

UNIFIL--the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978--is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old.

In war, minutes are life, and with the information that Hezbollah was receiving, had Israel mounted a significant frontal assault, and Hezbollah been prepared, the IDF would have been marchng into a meat grinder. Troop movements, contingency numbers, equipment, and units; hell, it was like Israel was giving Hezbollah a guided tour.

Meanwhile, UNIFIL posted not a single item of specific intelligence regarding Hezbollah forces. Statements on the order of Hezbollah "fired rockets in large numbers from various locations" and Hezbollah's rockets "were fired in significantly larger numbers from various locations" are as precise as its coverage of the other side ever got.

This war was fought on cable television and the Internet, and a lot of official information was available in real time. But the specific military intelligence UNIFIL posted could not be had from any non-U.N. source. The Israeli press--always eager to push the envelope--did not publish the details of troop movements and logistics. Neither the European press nor the rest of the world media, though hardly bastions of concern for the safety of Israeli troops, provided the IDF intelligence details that UNIFIL did. A search of Israeli government websites failed to turn up the details published to the world each day by the U.N.

I'm sure the world would like to know where that information was coming from. We're not talking about a news report about the aftermath of a confrontation here. We're talking about information given before a move is made. We either have someone within Olmert's inner circle that can't keep their mouth shut, or we have a high-ranking officer who can't do it that's privy to much of that information. (I doubt the officer theory for the sheer reason that Olmert is facing a minor mutiny within the IDF right now because of how he went about the war.)

Inquiries made of various Israeli military and government representatives and analysts yielded near unanimous agreement that at least some of UNIFIL's postings, in the words of one retired senior military analyst, "could have exposed Israeli soldiers to grave danger." These analysts, including a current high ranking military official, noted that the same intelligence would not have been provided by the U.N. about Israel's enemies.

Sure enough, a review of every single UNIFIL web posting during the war shows that, while UNIFIL was daily revealing the towns where Israeli soldiers were located, the positions from which they were firing, and when and how they had entered Lebanese territory, it never described Hezbollah movements or locations with any specificity whatsoever.

Compare the vague "various locations" language with this UNIFIL posting from July 25:

Yesterday and during last night, the IDF moved significant reinforcements, including a number of tanks, armored personnel carriers, bulldozers and infantry, to the area of Marun Al Ras inside Lebanese territory. The IDF advanced from that area north toward Bint Jubayl, and south towards Yarun.

Or with the posting on July 24, in which UNIFIL revealed that the IDF stationed between Marun Al Ras and Bint Jubayl were "significantly reinforced during the night and this morning with a number of tanks and armored personnel carriers."

Anyone think Hezbollah was going to attack them after that was up? Hello? We live in a 21st Century world, and our enemies employ much of the same tactics we do, especially in the cyber realms. In other words, they can operate a computer and a mouse just as easily as we can. UNIFIL obviously knows this, and went to great lengths to employ the Internet into Hezbollah's repetoire of tactics.

This partiality is inconsistent not only with UNIFIL's mission but also with its own stated policies. In a telling incident just a few years back, UNIFIL vigorously insisted on its "neutral ity"--at Israel's expense.

On October 7, 2000, three IDF soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah just yards from a UNIFIL shelter and dragged across the border into Lebanon, where they disappeared. The U.N. was thought to have videotaped the incident or its immediate aftermath. Rather than help Israel rescue its kidnapped soldiers by providing this evidence, however, the U.N. obstructed the Israeli investigation.

For months the Israeli government pleaded with the U.N. to turn over any videotape that might shed light on the location and condition of its missing men. And for nine months the U.N. stonewalled, insisting first that no such tape existed, then that just one tape existed, and eventually conceding that there were two more tapes. During those nine months, clips from the videotapes were shown on Syrian and Lebanese television.

Explaining their eventual about-face, U.N. officials said the decision had been made by the on-site commanders that it was not their responsibility to provide the material to Israel; indeed, that to do so would violate the peacekeeping mandate, which required "full impartiality and objectivity." The U.N. report on the incident was adamant that its force had "to ensure that military and other sensitive information remains in their domain and is not passed to parties to a conflict."

Stymied in its efforts to recover the men while they were still alive, Israel ultimately agreed to an exchange in January 2004: It released 429 Arab prisoners and detainees, among them convicted terrorists, and the bodies of 60 Lebanese decedents and members of Hezbollah, in exchange
for the bodies of the three soldiers. Blame for the deaths of those three Israelis can be laid, at least in part, at the feet of the U.N., which went to the wall defending its inviolable pledge never to share military intelligence about one party with another.

Neutrality? Yes, they can say it, but I doubt they can comprehend the concept. This is another example of that neutrality. They have the same idea when investigating themselves. There will be neutrality as long as no one in the UN is held responsible.

UNIFIL has just done what it then vowed it could never do. Once again, it has acted to shield one side in the conflict and to harm the other. Why is this permitted? For that matter, how did the U.N. obtain such detailed and timely military intelligence in the first place, before broadcasting it for Israel's enemies to see?

We have railed about the UN in the past. And we have been more than justified. They turned a blind eye to Rwanda and Darfur. They "investigated" the Congo sex abuse, and found no one at fault, really. A slap on the hand, and a few months later, it's erupting again in the Congo. Oil-For-Food we thought was the breaking point, but all Washington did was yawn. Corruption, it seems, isn't considered a "bad" thing for the UN. Now we have them helping an enemy of one of our closest allies; an enemy of the US, as well.

What does this say for our relations and participation in such an organization. It doesn't bode well for us if some stink isn't raised over this. And not just from Israel. If it comes from them alone, Kofi Annan will file that complaint in the same round file he chose with the first batch of complaints from them after Hezbollah violated the cease-fire the first time. The US, Britain, Australia, and anyone else out there with some fortitude need to make some hay about this. The world needs to have the curtain parted to see that behind the curtain, there's a cockroach at the helm of an organization that used to have promise.

Now, it's a joke. It's another bureaucracy that needs to die. The funds need to be withdrawn. Our troops acting as peacekeepers need to be brought home. And then they need to shown the door out of our country. Let them go over to "Old" Europe where they'll be welcome. If this goes unremarked and unaccounted for, then said inaction should ring loud and clear to the Western nations of the world that the UN just can't be trusted, and should be abandoned.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dem Candidates Running From The Cut-And-Run Crowd

Posted by on Sunday, August 27, 2006 1:07:02 PM
 And the above is a true statement. Democrats are not unintelligent, however those on the extreme Left are because they continually take positions contrary to the "mom-and-pop" wing that has served that party for so long. When the Democrats took their hard Left turn, they abandoned the side of them that held a proud heritage. It was the same side that supported FDR in World War II, and Truman who followed. It was the same side that wholeheartedly embraced JFK. But then the party turned, and its politicis shifted to such a great degree that the mom-and-pop types no longer recognize their own party; in essence, they feel like Reagan did when he realized his party had abandoned him.

Some may have finally seen the writing on the wall, or they are playing games with their constituents. All I know is what the WaPo has up today, and that is a story about Democrats distancing themselves from the unhinged Left that could not tell the difference between a French flag of surrender and American National Security:

Most Democratic candidates in competitive congressional races are opposed to setting a timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, rejecting pressure from liberal activists to demand a quick end to the three-year-old military conflict.

Of the 59 Democrats in hotly contested House and Senate races, a majority agree with the Bush administration that it would be unwise to set a specific schedule for troop withdrawal, and only a few are calling for substantial troop reductions to begin this year, according to a Washington Post survey of the campaigns.

The large number of Democrats opposed to a strict timeline for ending the military operations runs contrary to the assertion by President Bush and top Republicans that Democrats want to "cut and run" amid mounting casualties and signs of civil war. At the same time, the decision by many Democrats to refrain from advocating a specific plan for withdrawal complicates their leaders' efforts to convince voters that they offer a clear new direction for the increasingly unpopular war.

"It is like dropping a raw egg and asking me what my plans are for putting it back together," said Chris Murphy, the Democrat challenging Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.). Murphy favors bringing home National Guard and reserve units, or about 25,000 of the 138,000 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq, beginning next year, and leaving it to Bush's military commanders to determine the rest of the exit strategy.

To Mr. Murphy and the rest of the Democrats out there, I have this for you: The troops will ocme home when the mission is complete. And not a moment sooner.

People like John Kerry, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Russ feingold, and even Joe Lieberman (who is echoing certain sentiments) have the wrong idea for Iraq. Cutting and running (do not let them fool you because that is precisely what they are advocating) will only cause Iraq to collapse into utter chaos, leaving them at the mercy (or lack thereof) of their neighbors Syria and Iran. If we would like to see another Somalia (circa today, not 1993, a la Black Hawk Down) then all we need to do is pull out of Iraq. In less than a year, it will enbd up being a civil war-torn country under militant Islamic control.

And while I will grant that some of the Democrats might actually NOT favor withdrawing troops, we need to remind ourselves that these people will say and do almost anything to get into power (unseating Republicans along the way), or to maintain their power. They have for many years, promising this or that, then delivering the opposite or a seriously watered-down version of their promises. And here is an example to emphasize my point:

With polls showing that a majority of Americans believe it was a mistake for the United States to invade Iraq, some Democrats say the wisest political course is to blame Bush and the GOP for problems in Iraq but avoid getting drawn into a debate with Republicans over how they would go about dealing with the war.

"They want to give us this cut-and-run moniker and accuse us of a pre-9/11 mentality," said Diane Farrell, a Democrat who is challenging Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.). "I absolutely refuse to be manipulated by Karl Rove and company."

Democrats are pressing Republican lawmakers to defend Bush's war policies in the face of mounting troop and civilian casualties in Iraq, and to explain why the GOP-controlled Congress did not scrutinize mistakes by the administration and the military in prewar planning. Democrats say they would have held Bush accountable for what they deem his mismanagement of the invasion, occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. They promise rigorous oversight of the war if they take control of either chamber.

See, Ms. Farrell misses the point. The "moniker" of "cut-and-run" first popped up in 2004 with John Kerry's numerous gaffes surrounding the idea. Then the party just never gave it up after his loss to President Bush in 2004. Instead of tossing aside a platform point that obviously did not reflect well with voters, they latched onto the point, and made it a stple of the platform. And if the polls reflect that a majority of people believe it was a mistake to go into Iraq, then why are these sixty, or so, Democrats running away from a party platform that seems to have backing in the party's base?

Simply put, they know the polls are skewed, and that a majority of Americans, while they may not be happy with the war, do not want our troops abandoning Iraq; a mjority knows what will happen. The Democrats obviously cannot graps the idea. As a matter of fact, not even Miss Cleo can help them see that. (Though I hear that Hillary is in constant contact with Eleanor Roosevelt over this subject.) All right. All Right. Quit throwing tomatoes; I know it was a bad joke.

The fact remains that the Democrats are facing a heck of a split in their party on this issue, which simply proves that they have no cohesive platform. These candidates know that if they stand on the issue of troop withdrawal that the only time they will see the inside of a congressman's office is if they visit it. And if they do not raise a stink about the war, the nutroots campaign led by the unhinged base will crucify them, as they did to Lieberman in Connecticut.

Most of all the Democrats are going to be one-issue voters in this election. The war and national security, both of which go hand-in-hand, will be the 800lb. gorilla in the room. And if that is the issue which they are running on, make or break, then so be it. But the base is looking at a national party in shambles with no solid, uniting message to their constituents. The message they want to adopt, other candidates are afraid to because they know it is a losing issue. Retreat and defeat will not work for them now, or in 2008.

With things coming to a head regarding Iran, and the public knows that Iran will be a serious point of contention in the months and years down the road. The bases in both parties understand what sort of world we live in, and it is not pretty. It is one where our enemies are ruthless and merciless, and show next-to-no pity for those innocents they kidnap or kill.

And in such a world a strong defense is needed to keep the wolves back. A national security plan is needed to protect this nation from harm. Like it or not, under the presidency of George W. Bush this nation has not suffered another attack since 9/11. That is commendable, but it is due to the programs put in place by the president and his colleagues in the House and Senate. It is not coming from the Democrats. On the contrary, they are fighting him on these measures that were put in place shortly after the attacks.

And whether you agree or disagree with the president's NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program, the SWIFT financial tracking program, or how we are treating the prisoners in this (which is with virtual kid gloves right now), there is no argument in the fact that these programs are keeping us safe and secure. And in the end, when we go into the voting booths, there is one question we have to ask ourselves.

Do we want to trust a party that has butted heads with the president over issues of national security; the same party who celebrated "killing the Patriot Act," and celebrated Judge Taylor's unhinged decision to rule the NSA surveillance program unconstitutional? Or are we going to trust the president and his party to continue making progress on the homefront, in terms of preventing further attacks, and on the war front in taking the fight to the bad guys?

Personally, I will choose the latter this year because the Democrat's lack-of-a-plan is likely to get us killed. And if we lose this war, all the petty issues that are on the minds of voters--from gay marriage to immigration reform--will not amount to a hill of beans. This issue is the most important one facing us right now. And while some Democrats are running away from the unhinged moonbats in their party--and that is commendable--I do not trust them once elected.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Kooky Kofi Proves Us Right, Again

Posted by on Saturday, August 26, 2006 8:05:15 PM
 I wonder if Kofi Annan realizes that he is the most despised man in America. And he is not even an American himself, but his time as United Nations Secretary General has been marred by his complete and utter incompetance, his corrupt nature, and a total disregard for what the United Nation's real mission is in the world. (Here is a hint for him: Enabling terrorists and dictators are nowhere within the charter, yet he has added it via fiat.)

Now Charles Johnson brings up what could be classified as "famous last words" if the United Nations were truly the sort of organization they present to the unknowing public. Today, Kofi Annan made himself perfectly clear:

Israel said Saturday it was encouraging some Muslim countries to send peacekeepers to southern Lebanon, a contribution that would lend credibility to the heavily European force.

EU nations pledged 6,900 troops Friday, dispelling concerns that the peacekeeping force might not materialize because of reluctance to send troops without clear instructions or authorization to use their weapons.

But the force was still far short of the 15,000 troops envisioned under a resolution that stopped a month of fighting between Israel and the Islamic Hezbollah guerrillas.

The EU and U.N. agree the peacekeeping mission must have a strong Muslim component to give it credibility. Israel, however, objects to nations that do not recognize the Jewish state, saying such troops would make it impossible for Jerusalem to share intelligence with the U.N. force. That would exclude Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia, which have offered troops.

But Israel said it has been in touch with other Muslim countries to encourage them to participate, particularly Turkey, which has diplomatic relations with Israel.

"If Turkey decides to send a contingent, we would welcome that," said Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev.

Jordan and Egypt also are among Muslim countries that have diplomatic relations with Israel.

The international force is to reinforce the Lebanese army, which is moving 15,000 soldiers of its own into the south. They are the first assertion of central authority in the region along the Israeli border in decades.

But 13 days after Israel and Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire, questions remained about how to enforce the vague truce and prevent the area from exploding again. It was unclear how the
United Nations would meet Israel's demand to prevent Hezbollah from rearming.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan stressed Friday it was not the peacekeepers' task to strip the guerrillas of their weapons, saying that was an issue for Lebanon's government and "cannot be done by force."

"The troops are not going there to disarm Hezbollah. Let's be clear about that," he said.

Yes, let us ALL be clear about this: Kofi Annan and the United Nations have no intention, whatsoever, of enforcing their past resolutions. Hezbollah was supposed to have disarmed on the heels of Resolution 1559, which they did not do. And though Resolution 1701 has no such language within it, it does not trump 1559. That one is still in effect, and the United Nations, with this clear, concise statement from Kofi Annan, has decided they will not enforce yet another resolution. We had twelve years of this garbage with Saddam Hussein, and it seems that the international organization has yet to learn from its lesson. Kofi Annan's allies fought hard against the addendum to 1701, which laid out a set of rules of engagement for the peacekeepers being sent; an "oversight" on Mr. Annan's part, to be sure. (Right, and I have a bridge to sell you in Lake Havasu City. It was one London's and now I own it.)

This is purely pathetic, and I have to question the buffoons in Washington who still think it is a good idea to be a part of this organization. It is corrupt beyond reform, and should simply be scrapped; much as the League of Nations was when it failed to prevent World War II from happening. The United Nations has had its time on this earth, and frankly speaking, it wore out its welcome decades ago.

And as long as the United Nations will not force Hezbollah to disarm, we wil watch the region get hot again within a matter of months. (I know I predicted fourteen days, but this cease-fire has lasted thirteen of them, thus far; unless Hezbollah decides to be bold and attack Israel tomorrow--and all-out attack--my prediction will be wrong.) Syria and Iran are working to resupply Hezbollah, and I am sure more Iranian Revolutionary guardsmen have already come across the border to reinforce Hezbollah. This cease-fire will not last, and the gamesmanship the United Nations is playing is going to be the catalyst that lights the fuse all over agin.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iran's 'Nuclear Surprise,' Or More Chess Games On The International Stage?

Posted by on Saturday, August 26, 2006 9:48:56 AM
 Reuters reports that Iran has made an announcement regarding their nuclear program: The Arak heavy-water reactor plant, is "operational."

Iran has completed a new phase in its Arak heavy-water reactor plant, a presidential official said on Saturday, referring to part of Iran's atomic program which the West fears is aimed at producing bombs.

The official said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would give a speech later in the day "announcing that the heavy-water project has become operational", southwest of the capital Tehran. The plant's plutonium by-product could be used to make atomic warheads.

Western nations accuse Iran of seeking to master technology to produce nuclear weapons. Iran, the world's fourth largest oil exporter, insists its aim is only for electricity.

A small group of correspondents from foreign news organizations were being taken with Iranian journalists to Arak to attend the president's speech.

A senior Iranian nuclear official earlier this week said Iran would start up the heavy-water production part of the project but not the reactor. He had said this part of the project was not a proliferation risk.

"The product of this project provides for cooling and depleting systems of the reactor, that can be used in various industries," the official had told Reuters.

He said heavy water had no military use so supervision by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was not obligatory.

One Western diplomat agreed that the heavy-water portion could not be diverted to military uses but said that such an announcement coming amid the current standoff over Iran's nuclear program would not be a constructive step.

The West's main concern is Iran's program for enriching uranium, a process that can be used to make fuel for nuclear power stations or material for bombs.

The U.N. Security Council has demanded Iran stop this work by August 31 or face possible sanctions.

In its reply to an incentives offer backed by six world powers aimed at encouraging Iran to halt enrichment, Iran hinted it might be ready to consider halting the work as a result of talks but not as a precondition, which the package proposed.

Just one more step in a long line where Iran continues its march towards being able to create nuclear weapons. And, of course, we're still being slapped int he face with defiance from Iran. While the incentive package looks good tothem (a mighty tasty carrot), Iran refuses to end its enrichment per the US offer, This is the first step in breaking the deal before the ball even gets rolling. And the US should maintain the stance that until it has stopped its enrichment, there will be no talks.

Unfortunately, I doubt that will happen. It should also be noted that as long as Iran has this up and running, they can put unenriched uranium into it to create weapons-grade plutonium. This removes th idea that if their enrichment facilities were hit that it ended Iran's nuclear program. Now that this is up and operational, targeting the enrichment facilities is virtually moot. (I say 'virtually' for the sole purpose that if the reactor is taken out, they would still have their enrichment facilities. A strike conducted to remove this facet from their program would mean that ALL enrichment sites--including their heavy water reactor--would have to be hit.

But regardles of that, this is simply more defiance from Iran. And after all that has been said and offered, you'd think that Iran would tone it down a little. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. And it is running us directly on a path towards confrontation. This week, Israel announced that if they have to 'go it alone' against Iran, they would. This tells me two thigns. Either Olmert is trying to sound tough and brave to save his weakened position within the government, or that Israel is preparing a pre-emptive strike on Iran. And on any normal day, I would choose the latter, though now I'm not too sure.

Of course for Iran there is another option that I'm sure our intel experts have taken into account. Time is running out for them, and if they think they might heading towards a stand-off, where the possibility of the reactor becomes a target, they may be rushing ahead to get as much plutonium from the reactor as they can before the reactor becomes part of a target package. If that is the case, then they may have the technological know-how to construct a warhead. If this isn't Iran's predicted 'nuclear surprise' then a warhead using weapons-grade plutonium just might be.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Russia Openly Balks At Sanctions For Iran

Posted by on Friday, August 25, 2006 2:01:06 PM
 Just a break for me right now, and I noticed this news report from Reuters, via Yahoo News regarding the stand-off with Iran. Russia has now punted:

Russia rejected talk for now of sanctions against Iran and France warned on Friday against conflict with Tehran, raising doubts whether it will face swift penalties if nuclear work is not halted by an August 31 deadline.

Responding to an offer of economic incentives to stop enriching uranium, Iran hinted to six world powers on Tuesday it could rein in its program as a result of talks to implement the package -- but not as a precondition as they demand.

The reply seemed tailored to crack the brittle united front of four Western powers and Russia and China who agreed the U.N. deadline. The West sees Iran's nuclear drive as a looming threat to peace. Russia and China, key trade partners of Iran, do not.

"I know of no instances in world practice and previous experience in which sanctions have achieved their aim and proved effective," Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told reporters during a trip to Russia's far east.

"Moreover, I believe that the question is not so serious at the moment for the U.N. Security Council or the group of six to consider any introduction of sanctions. Russia stands for further political and diplomatic efforts to settle the issue."

Ivanov is seen as close to President Vladimir Putin.

Washington has said the six powers will move quickly to adopt sanctions if Iran disregards the deadline. Britain, Germany and France have been less conclusive in public.

Russia and China, both trade partners of Iran, have been unwilling and could veto sanctions in the Council.

Underlining the confusion, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he expected new talks in days with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani "to get clarification (on Iran's response) and see how we can move the process forward."

Solana said Iran's reply, a document of more than 20 pages, contained "new elements" about which he would like to talk.

U.S., French and German leaders said Iran's 21-page response to the incentives offer was unsatisfactory because it did not specifically agree to stop purifying uranium. Iran says its nuclear ambitions are limited to power production.

Asked about Russia's rejection of sanctions for now, State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said there were several days before the U.N. deadline and a lot could happen.

"This is diplomacy. We are going to be working together in consultation with them (Russia). The group (P5+1) will come together and we will make some decisions," said Gallegos.

French President Jacques Chirac, speaking after a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Paris, said Iran's response was "ambiguous."

"For the moment, it (the Iranian response) is not satisfactory," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on RTL radio, but added it was important to avoid escalating conflict with Iran and the Muslim world.

We know that Russia and China are going to provide cover for the mad mullahs in Tehran. As the article states, and as we have reminded readers for months, these three--Russia, China, and Iran--enjoy peaceful trade. Iran wants weapons and technology, and the other two want natural resources. For the trio of turpitude, it's a win-win game.

But for the rest of thr world--The West specifically--this is outrageous, and it was predicted. We knew that China and Russia were buying time for Iran with even agreeing to hear the grievances in the possible call for sanctions on the UNSC. Now that Iran has answered those demands and incentives, Russia and China feel it's time to tone down the rhetoric and begin talking. Uh-huh, fiddling while Rome burns. Iran can't be trusted to abide by any agreement that is reached. they have said it numerous times that they feel they have a right to enrich their uranium, and work on their nuclear program.

And we're not syaing that they can't. What we are saying, and I think it's been made pretty clear, is that we don't want them taking steps towards nuclear power when it comes to weapons. Enriching uranium is one of the steps involved in constructing nuclear weapons, and we are all well aware of their ties to the Khan network out of Pakistan that got them started on this path in the first place.

Before any negotiations begin, the enrichment must stop. If it doesn't then it's a deal breaker. And while sanctions are in doubt from the UNSC (and I note that Mr. Ivanov's assessment regarding sanctions is correct--they never seem toi work the way they're intended to) at the very least the nations opposed to the Iranians working on a nuclear program without any sort of inspections should slap their own sanctions and embargoes on them. No trading. No talks. Nothing--not even a "we'll do lunch" for their diplomats--should be offered or discussed until they comply. Isolation worked for nations like Russia and North Korea. Let's see if it can work on Iran. Oh, and for those out there shaking their heads, thinking that China and Russia will continue to trade with them, yes, you're correct. But we can curtail our diplomatic ties with those nations, as well.

If America is the one that everyone looks to for leaderhsip in such matters, then when we make a decision that's for the collective good, everyone doesn't get a free pass to whine about it. If Iran doesn't want to negotiate in good faith, if Russia and China want to continue enabling these lunatics, then we should freeze them all out as best we can.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Classless Ray Nagin

Posted by on Friday, August 25, 2006 1:17:24 PM
 I am just out of class, and relaxing before my next one, and I figured I would surf the Internet in between. And what am I greeted with when I get online? Why, it is a story about Ray Nagin, and a truly classless remark made by him that will air on 60 Minutes this coming Sunday. The CBS site has a synopsis of the interview.

Hat-Tip: Drudge

Confronted by accusations that he’s taking too long to clean up his city after Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin defended himself by remarking on New York City’s failure to rebuild Ground Zero.

Nagin made the remarks in an interview conducted by CBS News National Correspondent Byron Pitts which will be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, Aug. 27, at 7 p.m. EDT. On a tour of the decimated Ninth Ward, Nagin tells Pitts the city has removed most of the debris from public property and it’s mainly private land that’s still affected – areas that can’t be cleaned without the owners' permission.

But when Pitts points to flood-damaged cars in the street and a house washed partially into the street, the mayor shoots back. "That’s alright. You guys in New York can’t get a hole in the ground fixed and it’s five years later. So let’s be fair."

He wants "fair." I will give him "fair."

September 11th, 2001 was the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. Two of four hijacked commercial jetliners were crashed into the World Trade Towers--two of the tallest buildings along the Manhattan skyline. Within a couple hours after being crashed into those buildings, the towers came down onto the Manhattan street. THOUSANDS were killed inthe towers, when they collapsed, and when the debris hit the gorund. Rescue operations immediately began for those trapped in the rubble.

Because this was an act of terrorism, and that is a crime, the FBI, NTSB, and FAA began a FULL INVESTIGATION. I am not sure if Mayor Nagin is familiar with such an operation but here's a hint for the little dolt from New Orleans. ANY and ALL evidence had to be gathered. Not just the flaight data recorders, but human remains, as well. People had to be identified. Add to the mix the smoldering remains, which burned for over two months, added time to the overall clean-up effort. And let us not forget the extent of the debris on the ground. There was tons upon tons of it lying around. This was no easy clean-up. And we should also not forget how many buildings, in the end, were demolished due to the damage they took from the towers' falling debris. It was not simply two buildings that were wrecked in this attack.

Yet, Mayor Nagin--typical "victocrat"--does this, I am sure, to deflect blame away from himself and Governor Blanco. Why was the evacuation plan not activated? Why were buses sitting in water up to their roofs rather than evacuating people out of New Orleans? Why were the Army Corps of Engineers ignored when they issued a report that the levees had to be reinforced PRIOR to Katrina's existence?

To Mayor Nagin: Do not lecture this nation about 9/11. It took us years to clean up the site, and the only thing remaining now is to break ground on the rebuilding of the new building--the Freedom Tower--before the city moves on. The sheer and utter incompetance of the mayor and the governor during Katrina is a fine example of Democrats in action during a disaster. And Mayor Nagin has the unmitigated gall to bring up New York City after 9/11.

All I have to say to the people of New Orleans is this: You idiots put him in office in the first place. The ineptitude he showed during Katrina was appalling, and rather than toss him out of office and start with someone new because of his inability to handle the crisis, you poor fools reelected him. And it is because he is still blaming the federal government for the aftermath of Katrina. While I will grant them a certain level of anger (that regarding FEMA's response), it does not change the fact that the federal government cannot step in during such a crisis unless asked to. For that, Governor Blanco is to blame. She was offered assistance--not once, but TWICE--from the president, and she turned him down both times. It was prompting from the White House that even set the half-hearted evacuations in motion.

If Mayor Nagin wants to look like a fool on 60 Minutes, so be it. But the majority of Americans are not buying this load of bull that he is shoveling. And I am sure there will be a fiar amount of Americans, like myself, that are insulted, offended, and appalled that he would even think of taking a swipe at New York City for their efforts in cleaning up Ground Zero. Ground Zero was not like the aftermath of a hurricane, and cannot be compared to such. (Only the "intellectually dishonest" can make such a comparison; fitting for a liberal Democrat like Mayor Nagin.) And through this snide little comment, we can see that he is still blaming everyone else rather than those directly involved. No, he did not wreck New Orleans; Mother Nature did. But the clean-up efforts in New Orleans have been sub-par, at best, and he has no one to blame but himself and the governor.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

And The Critics Continue To Assail Nutty Judge Taylor

Posted by on Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:14:50 PM
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor assured herself of her fifteen minutes of fame in history when she ruled that the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program was unconstitutional. In doing so, she did a grave disservice to the legal community, and a fair number of her like-minded colleagues have beaten on this judge "like a bongo drum" over her philosophy. Clearly, after one reads the decision, we can see that there is no merit for the suit to be brought before the courts in the first place (Judge Ellis's recent decision in the AIPAC case set precedent that national security is not superceded by the First Amendment), nor does her Fourth Amendment assertions hold any water when it comes to the gathering of foreign intelligence.

Today, David Rivkin, Jr. and Lee Casey in the Washington Times took Judge Taylor to task:

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's recent opinion striking down the National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance program is neither an accurate statement of what the law is nor of what it should be. To her credit, Judge Taylor made no secret of how she approached this case.

Early in her opinion she refers to "the War on Terror of this administration." In other words, this is not her war and it's not America's war, it's George W. Bush's war, and the judge was clearly determined to hold at least one aspect of that war — the NSA surveillance program — unconstitutional. She did so based on a deeply flawed rationale.

This shows the personal bias of Judge Taylor in her decision. She does not like the president, feels his war is wrong, and most importantly, believes (incorrectly, I might add) that steps such as the NSA TSP is unconstitutional. Such interpretations are wrong, and a roll-back of these policies threatens to harm this nation greatly.

Most critics have challenged the program's legality on statutory, rather than constitutional, grounds. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) generally requires a special judicial order before the government can intercept electronic communications for foreign intelligence purposes, except as otherwise "authorized by statute." The Bush administration argues that the NSA program was authorized by statute in the form of Congress' Sept. 18, 2001, Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

That law authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force" against those responsible for the September 11 attacks, and the Supreme Court has already interpreted the AUMF, in its 2004 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ruling, to provide statutory permission for all of the "fundamental incident of waging war." This case was not affected by the court's more recent war on terror decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, where it concluded — based on a different statutory text that was not impacted by the AUMF — that military commission rules must be consistent with those applied in regular courts-martial.

But in refusing to observe the precedent from Hamdi, Judge Taylor ventured into virtually uncharted waters of jurisprudence. Indeed, there is no sign in her decision that she even considered the relevant statutes in connection with the authorization of this program.

Obviously, many believe that electronic surveillance in the United States is just too far removed from the "fundamental incidents of war" to have been justified, without more specific language, by the AUMF. Judge Taylor, however, fails to confront or answer the administration's actual Hamdi/AUMF argument. Instead, she concluded that the NSA program would be unconstitutional even if authorized by Congress in the AUMF. She based this extraordinary ruling on a misconstruction of both the Fourth and First Amendments.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures," and requires that search warrants be issued only on a probable cause showing. The Supreme Court has ruled that most warrantless searches are unreasonable, except in cases of "special needs." Special needs cases include instances where individuals are leaving or entering the United States, and are very similar to the international or trans-boundary communications subject to the NSA program. Judge Taylor does not reconcile this important exception to the general rule with her sweeping claims that prior warrants are required "for any reasonable search."

Nor did she grapple with cases — including the Fourth Circuit's leading decision in United States v. Truong (1980) — upholding warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence gathering purposes. Truong involved the wiretapping of a Vietnamese citizen and his U.S. contact, as part of an effort to discover who was leaking classified information. The court upheld the surveillance under the Fourth Amendment since the government's primary purpose had been collection of foreign intelligence information — rather than a criminal investigation. Truong and the 2002 FISA Appeals Court's opinion in In re Sealed Case are not, of course, Supreme Court decisions binding on Judge Taylor. But, at a minimum, she should have acknowledged the existence of such important contrary authority, and explained why she considered a different rule to be more appropriate.

I disagree that the FISA Court of Review's decision does not apply to Judge Taylor's reasoning. It is a decision, handed down by the courts, and it contains a valuable rebuttal to the critics of those who believe the president is violating the Constitution when he engages in warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance. But to go back to Judge Taylor's decision, the original Truong case specifically stated the following:

For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], “unduly frustrate” the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations.

The Supreme Court ruled that such encroachments upon executive branch powers would "unduly frustrate" the president when it came to protecting this nation through the use of surveillance. Again, this goes to the "special needs" jurisprudence regarding the Fourth Amendment. The president must be able to take steps necessary to protect the nation, and filing for a warrant every time the government wishes to exercise this power does counteract their authority. And they justified their decision by pointing to two possibilities if the president's authority was not upheld. Either it would delay action to protect the nation, or it ran the risk of being leaked, thereby making our enemy change its tactics.

Most troubling of all, however, is Judge Taylor's First Amendment analysis. She concluded that the NSA program violated free speech guarantees because the president "undisp*tably violated the Fourth Amendment in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well." In fact, a Fourth Amendment violation does not necessarily or even likely result in a First Amendment violation. Although, as Judge Taylor noted, the Supreme Court has recognized that "[n]ational security cases ... often reflect a convergence of First and Fourth Amendment values," the amendments' purposes and protections are distinct, as are the analyses necessary to determine whether one or both have been violated.

To have a First Amendment standing, the plaintiffs have to show that they were "injured" in general; not individually. But her interpretation of the plaintiffs injury is an acceptance of their argument. That they were unable to communicate with our enemies (these were lawyers and journalists bringing the suit) because our enemies felt "chilled" by the program. To them, the existence of the NSA program unduly confounds their ability to speak with these people. Unfortunately, we do have people who believe that they should be able to talk to our enemies without any sort of intereference despite evidence that people like this, if they believe in the cause of our enemies they want the ability to help them without any sort of governmental constraints.

Critically, the Fourth Amendment permits government action based upon probable cause, while the First Amendment requires regulation of protected speech to be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.

Standards aside, the logical implications of Judge Taylor's First Amendment conclusions are unprecedented. If the NSA program's very existence impermissibly "chilled" plaintiffs, several advocacy groups, lawyers and journalists, in speaking with known or suspected terrorists overseas, and the terrorists in speaking with them, then the government can never intercept foreign intelligence — with or without congressional approval or a warrant — unless it also can show that the program is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. The courts rarely find this standard to be met.

Judge Taylor has had a long and distinguished career — serving on the federal bench since 1979. In this opinion, however, she has served neither justice nor the rule of law. It will be up to the court of appeals and, ultimately, the Supreme Court to set things right.

And the Sixth will find that Judge Taylor's logic is equally distressing and twisted. With a little hope, and a healthy dose of reviewing her decision, it should be overturned quickly. The stay was issued for a reason; obviously the Sixth Circuit Court recognized the problem with her jurisprudential reasoning.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Caliphate in Gaza?

Posted by on Thursday, August 24, 2006 5:05:36 PM
I do not know if I should be worried, or laughing at this story from the Jerusalem Post:

(Hat-Tip courtesy of Captain Ed)


For the first time since the Hamas victory in the parliamentary elections earlier this year, the Fatah central committee, a key decision-making body in the Palestinian Authority, began a three-day meeting in Jordan on Wednesday to discuss internal reforms and relations with Hamas.

Meanwhile, a radical Islamic group called Hizb al-Tahrir (Liberation Party) is planning to declare the birth of an Islamic caliphate in the Gaza Strip on Friday. The relatively small party, which is seen as more extreme than Hamas, is said to have increased its popularity following what is perceived as a Hizbullah victory over Israel.

On Tuesday, thousands of the party's supporters staged a demonstration in Gaza City to mark the anniversary of the end of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. It was the first demonstration in the Gaza Strip in which demonstrators called for establishing an Islamic caliphate that would rule not only in the PA territories, but the entire world.

Buoyed by the large turnout, the party's leaders are now considering declaring an Islamic caliphate in the Gaza Strip during Friday prayers, sources close to the party said.

Jordanian security forces recently foiled a similar attempt by the party's followers in the kingdom and arrested most of their leaders. Ramzi Sawalhah, the leader of Hizb al-Tahrir in Jordan, was arrested shortly after he delivered a sermon in a mosque in which he called for replacing the monarchy with an Islamic caliphate.

Coming froma group of people who cannot even govern themselves well, the idea of a caliphate is extremely laughable. However it is no laughing matter when one considers the situation in the Middle East, and within the Palestinian government. Fatah's defeat compared to Hamas's supposed rising star shows a significant shift in politics, at least as terrorist groups go. I do believe that Fatah under Abbas was trying to make peace with Israel. Of course, many people would consider that naive, and so be it; under Abbas, the Palestinians were not nearly as bold as Hamas. It was Hamas, through their proxies in Islamic Jihad, that started this latest round of violence there when they kidnapped an IDF soldier.

Furthermore, the idea of a caliphate continues to push the Iranian agenda of such a feat. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to reestablish the Persian Empire as it once was, and under the rule of a caliphate. So in a way this is hardly a laughing matter. If there is enough of an outrage towards the status quo in Gaza from the people, they could elevate the Liberation Party into positions of power in coming years through election; no different than the tactics used by Hamas and Hezbollah in their grab for power within the legitimate government. But it all boils down to the same glaringly obvious fact: These are terrorists, and no amount of political power or responsibility is going to make them legitimate.

But Captain Ed has an astute observation regarding this little development:

"It's not likely to succeed. The Iranians want a new Caliphate -- based in Teheran. The Saudis want a new Caliphate -- based in Mecca. Arabs don't trust Persians, Sunni don't trust Shi'a, and so on. No one will trust Hizb al-Tahrir with the leadership of the Muslim world, and while some may humor the newcomers as a way to tweak the Israelis, none of them will take direction from upstarts among a people that they scorn except for their value in rabble-rousing in their own nations."

He is correct. This will only strain relations there, and not just in the context of "tweaking" Israel; we have seen these groups fight it out before. Fatah, Hamas, Hib al-Tahrir, Islamic Jihad, the PLO--it does not matter who is involved. Each one want their own little group to control, and they have no problem going to war against one another. Remember the elections that propelled Hamas into the cat-bird seat? Anyone remember the photos from those elections? The gunmen parading around, and the rhetoric from both Fatah and Hamas members was increasingly hostile towards each other. And these people think they can govern? That is what truly tends to be comedic about this. They think they can govern. Right.

And pigs can fly ...

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Jerusalem Post--"Israel May 'Go It Alone' Against Iran"

Posted by on Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:09:50 PM
 That is the report from the Jerusalem Post today, and all I have to say is if that is the case I hope either the leadership is changed, or that the current leadership changes it's tune. They cannot go halfway on Iran like they did against Hezbollah:

Israel is carefully watching the world's reaction to Iran's continued refusal to suspend uranium enrichment, with some high-level officials arguing it is now clear that when it comes to stopping Iran, Israel "may have to go it alone," The Jerusalem Post has learned.

One senior source said on Tuesday that Iran "flipped the world the bird" by not responding positively to the Western incentive plan to stop uranium enrichment. He expressed frustration that the Russians and Chinese were already saying that Iran's offer of a "new formula" and willingness to enter "serious negotiations" was an opening to keep on talking.

"The Iranians know the world will do nothing," he said. "This is similar to the world's attempts to appease Hitler in the 1930s - they are trying to feed the beast."

He said there was a need to understand that "when push comes to shove," Israel would have to be prepared to "slow down" the Iranian nuclear threat by itself.

Having said this, he did not rule out the possibility of US military action, but said that if this were to take place, it would probably not occur until the spring or summer of 2008, a few months before President George W. Bush leaves the international stage. The US presidential elections, which Bush cannot contest because of term limits, are in November 2008.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, in a meeting in Paris with French Foreign Minister Phillippe Douste-Blazy Wednesday, said Iran "poses a global threat" and needed to be dealt with by the whole international community.

"The first thing they need to do is stop the enrichment of uranium," Livni said. "Everyday that passes brings the Iranians closer to building a nuclear bomb. The world can't afford a nuclear Iran." She said the Iranian reply to the Western incentives was just an attempt to "gain time."

Government officials said Israel's role at this time is to warn the world of the dangers of an Iranian nuclear potential. Some government officials are sending the message to their counterparts abroad that the firm implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 on Lebanon will send a strong message to Iran - which is testing the world's resolve - that it is serious about implementing Security Council resolutions.

Meanwhile, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) reported Wednesday that the Iranian news service Al-Borz, which it said is known to have access to sources in the Iranian government, predicted that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would announce what the news service called Iran's "nuclear birth" on the first anniversary of his government later this month.

As we can see, Israel is indeed warning the world of what is happening, and the path that they are trekking down, yet again. We watched this happen in the 1930s with Hitler, and we have seen it time and again since. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, did the same thing. "All right we will negotiate; no we will not." It is the same old, same old.

And every day we ignore the truth of the Iranian nuclear program, it gives Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the time he needs to take the next step, and the next, and the next. Lord only knows what this new "nuclear" surprise is from Iran. If it is as anti-climactic as the 22nd was, then President Ahmadinejad has shown himself to be just as crazy and unhinged as the attention-starved Kim Jong-Il. To me, that is what these sort of stunts are doing. Eventually, people will simply ignore Iran, as we did to Kim Jong-Il. Unfortunately for the world, the next time we pay attention to him it could be too late, and the revelation that Iran has nuclear missiles will hit the world harder than North Korea's admission of having them did.

But if Israel chooses to act unilaterally on Iran--such as a bombing raid on their nuclear facilities--then the United States needs to support them as much as it can during such an endeavor. However I maintain that if Israel chooses to go this route they had better go all the way. Iran must be dealt with on a decisive level, and that means ending their nuclear program for the time being. The removal of a scarce and important level of the program may slow them down enough for the time being. And if it does erupt in all-out war, every nation in the coalition must come to Israel's aid. Whether through logistics, or through direct action, Iran will have to be stopped right there; in addition to direct hostilities that may be undertaken, we need to enable and assist the youth in Iran wishing to unseat the mullahocracy there.

Marcie
Email It