Moving on up

Will be out of touch for a while, impossible to say precisely. Maybe till January, maybe longer. Can't rush the Army.

A strike against Time

I can't believe that Time, supposedly a standard bearer for honest and professional journalism, would publish such a worthless essay. 95% of it is sarcasm. Seriously. The first 3(!) sentences are worth reading. The rest is an exercise in poorly executed satirical bullshit.

An Iraqi voice

Copied from The Mesopotamian.

Hi,

One of the most awesome and mystical phenomena in existence is how truth always finds a way to assert and vindicate itself despite all odds, fog and confusion. They said that no valid elections could be held “under occupation”; and when 8 millions went to the polls last time, they dismissed that with the pretext that the other 6 or 7 millions did not, that there was fraud, that the "Shiaas" and "Kurds" were taking advantages etc. etc.; and therefore the thing had no validity. What about it now? Now that the Sunnis had the slightest chance and a little respite from intimidation, we saw them march to the polling stations in their millions. How about that! If the Americans were rigging and faking things and organizing "shows", why would all these people risk their lives and turnout in this fashion, even as many of them may be harboring negative feelings and resentments? Would it not be more logical and appropriate to continue boycotting and shunning such infernal theatricals staged by the wicked Americans and their allies, such “infidel satanic wedding parties” as our eloquent friend Zarqawi called it recently? Does that not demonstrate in the most striking way that everybody in Iraq has come to realize that this is a genuine and real process in which it is worthwhile to risk one’s life to participate? Indeed the Sunnis have suffered the most in murders, assassinations and intimidation in the days leading up to the elections as a result of their active campaigning and electioneering efforts. Even the most extreme and resentful opponents of the new order had to concede and step aside; for instance the extremist Sunni “Council of Muslim Scholars” had to say that although it maintained its position of not recognizing the political process “under occupation”, “people were free to exercise their choices”. Yes, they had to bend in the face of the overwhelming wishes of the Sunni masses.

Today was a tremendous moment of our history, a turning point and a real milestone. Say what you like; things are not perfect; there are countless problems; the “insurgency” is not going to disappear; the reconstruction effort is in shambles; there is corruption and thieving everywhere; errors and mistakes in everything. Yet despite all that, the political process is proceeding like a dream and the tree of freedom is taking roots, and that tree will continue to grow and grow and grow. The Iraqis are again confounding all the "pundits" and "experts". But some just cannot understand the true soul of a people. That this most profound revolution initiated by an act of liberation, by the daring praxis of the Americans, driven by some mysterious hand of the Providence, has touched the innermost womb of a nation, and that the present agonies of this nation are those of giving birth and new life. Oh no, that they cannot understand. Well then, let them witness surprise after nasty surprise that will confound their logic and demolish their arguments. But the word mongers will always find something to say, as wild dogs are always wont to bark all the more hysterically as they are irked.

The word of truth has a life of its own; it seems to perpetuate itself and spread in the consciousness and subconscious of peoples and generations like some incurable virus, that may remain dormant for a while but will manifest itself in the most dramatic way sooner or later.

I wish that this would be reprinted in major newspapers. Hmm...

New Miracle Diet!

It's called get off your ass and do something while not stuffing your face with a couple of dozen doughnuts, bags of cookies, and potato chips every day.

Inspiring. Or at least it ought to be.

Double Post

I wonder how that happened...

So true

The last few lines of this article jumped out at me and are worth quoting here.

Tehran-based political analyst Mahmoud Alinejad said the president could feel his speeches strengthen Iran diplomatically.

"There is a perception, based on past experience that only when Iran threatens and pushes does the West back off," he told Reuters.

Thank you Neville Chamberlain, for your glorious legacy.

The Big Day

Finally, the Iraqis are getting to voice who will lead their first freely-elected, untainted (by US interference) government. And things seem to be going well so far. At noon Baghdad time, there had been no violent incidents, and reports that a truck bomb had been intercepted.

Now, if the victorious parties can be kept from being assassinated or otherwise disintegrating before they actually take office, things might really start to look up!

*sigh* NYT shennanigans.

I hate the Times. Know why?

Because they are gullible when reporting what they want to report. Or stupid. How does one cross a truck via national highway into a country whose borders are sealed?

On a completely different topic, I found a relatively old article that kind of surprised me; I didn't know that this made it into the news. I wonder who leaked?

Edit: On the topic of media bias.

Good new! Holocaust a myth!

Jews everywhere can rejoice; they're not the poor persecuted minority bitches of Europe after all! As a matter of fact, Europeans are PRO-Semitic, and went out of their way to establish a mass hysteria about an epic massacre that never occurred, just to help out their poor, scattered, disenfranchised buddies, the Jews.

Garbage. And somehow, I think that the Iranian leadership knows this. I just can't bring myself to believe that a world leader could be so uneducated (or stupid) as to actually believe this. Then again.

But let's just assume that Mr. Ahmadinejad knows what he's doing and the political implications thereof. If such is the case, then this is a (rather crude) dig at the legitimacy of Israel to exist as a nation. As Iran is not an Arab nation, they can't really do the "Arab Unity" thing concerning the Palestinian issues, so it looks like they found some other way to try to justify their opposition; namely that the basic motivation for the establishment of Israel was a lie and so therefore Israel should not exist.

Of course, everyone knows that the Iranian government feels this way, so why broadcast it now? Well, President Ahmadinejad seems to be kind of a bellicose bastard, for one thing. For another, Iran may be gearing up for eventual armed conflict with Israel and trying to align themselves with the Arab states, historically rivals to Iran, to strengthen their geo-political position should the fight come. Or maybe more specifically, to the Arab states' publics, since the governments have largely resigned themselves to the permanent existence of Israel.

Let's see how the UN (doesn't) react to this latest jab.

Pretty Funny

In the course of explaining how neo-Nazism is popular among Palestinians, this author came across kind of a funny video.

Iraqis Positive About Future

What a shock. I thought that the "war" was a complete failure, and we should leave right now, no one wants us there, et cetera.

Bet it's ignored though, even if it is from Time (a reasonably reputable outlet).

More on the Iran situation

TigerHawk has a (IMO) pretty astute analysis of the various leaks and shouts going on between Israel, Iran and co. over this nuclear business. It's rare to find a civilian who understands that governments leak things on purpose, at certain times, to certain people, and by certain departments as instruments of policy and methods of communication, especially when there are no formal diplomatic relations.

My only break from his/her/their logic is mentioned in the comments section.

A Worthwhile Read

Though I bet no one who opposes the author's views will read the whole thing.

Have I mentioned that...

I hate the media, esp. the NYT? From Confederate Yankee.

Parsing the Numbers

Is is surprising to anyone that the pathologically liberal New York Times would put the worst possible spin on any rise in President Bush's poll numbers? Bush's poll numbers have "improved markedly" since the last New York Times/CBS News Poll, but far be it for the Times to let that stand unchallenged.

According to the NY Times:

Despite his gains, Mr. Bush’s 40 percent approval rating remains among his lowest, and is still substantially lower than that of Presidents Clinton (who was at 58 percent) or Reagan (who was at 68 percent) at comparable points in their second terms.

But is that entirely accurate?

According to the 10/17 USA Today story that I've noted in the past:

Every president since 1963 has had approval ratings at one time or another that were lower than Bush's current rating. Those ratings include Lyndon Johnson's 35%, Richard Nixon's 24%, Gerald Ford's 37%, Jimmy Carter's 28%, Ronald Reagan's 35%, the elder George Bush's 29% and Bill Clinton's 37%.

A magical difference between the two polls is the highly subjective phrasing "at comparable points in their second terms." Had Bush been higher in the more polling, is their any doubt that the NY Times would change their definition of what comprises "comparable points?"

It consistently amazes me (even though it shouldn't, by now) how a major news outlet already plagued by self-imposed credibility issues and known for being a left-wing propaganda rag continues to feed on itself like Jörmungandr by continuing the practices that cause it such trouble.

"What? People think we're too liberal? Nonsense! We're just following our base!"

Concerning the CIA

From a comment I made on another blog that probably never got read since I was late to the party;

No one outside the intelligence community has any business criticizing the CIA for several reasons.

#1, they don't know how intelligence works. This includes the media (especially them), Congressmen without intelligence backgrounds (them too), and day to day citizens.

#2, they have no access to the reality of the operations in question; I promise, things are always way more complicated than anything that gets leaked to the press.

#3, no one ever hears of the successes, because the very nature of the success means that it is kept secret. This is why the CIA appears to civilians to be an inept organization. All the *successful* operations are kept under wraps, where they belong.

#4, the US intelligence community has retarded amounts of restrictions, red tape, and "mother may I?" clauses than A) it needs and B) it wants, especially the CIA. Case in point; leading up to 9/11, the US Army got wind of some of the hijackers traveling to the US for the operation. The Army, however, couldn't do anything about it because it is not legal for the military to collect information for intelligence purposes on "US Persons," much less act on it, which is a ridiculously large category including citizens, resident aliens, visa workers, diplomatic staff, and basically anyone able to come into the country, ever. So the Army passed the info on up to the FBI, where it got lost. (surprise!) Other, similar rules exist concerning who intelligence agents are allowed recruit, who and how much they can pay and for what purposes, when force is allowed, firearms are allowed, where you can operate, and so forth.

I'll mention two things that I know about that the CIA has done since 9/11 that are worthwhile.

1) Made possible the interception of a radiological bomb en route to the Atlantic seaboard. Bet y'all forgot about that dirty bomb alert in 2002 that culminated with the arrest of Jose Padilla didn't you? The feds don't just make this stuff up.

2) Prevented Afghanistan from sinking into another multi-factional civil war. Fuzzy on details, but it included a powerful knowledge of local politics and some greased palms.

Ah ha!

Here's something I've been pondering... Iran.

I think that Iran *will* build nuclear arms, with an S. Not that they intend do; any fool can see that. I think that they will succeed. They already have the necessary material to do so, and obviously they have the will to do it no matter what the UN has to say. Not that many care what the UN has to say.

Since the burden of proof is on me, here's my evidence in 3 categories. 1, evidence that Iran is trying to get nuclear arms, 2, how they will do it, and 3, why they will get away with it.

1. Iran completely acknowledges that it has nuclear research facilities and is reprocessing uranium. Iran claims that it's nuclear program and associated uranium enrichment is for peaceful purposes, electricity production, despite the fact that you can have a perfectly satisfactory nuclear reactor that is not also dual-use for nuclear weapon development. (this was a big issue with North Korea about 10 years ago, and we all know how that turned out) Why these ostensibly "peaceful" research sites have to be hidden and controlled by the military is, of course, an unanswered question. Given the militant history of the Iranian revolutionary regime, statements by its leadership, including a desire to "wipe out" Israel, Iran's affiliation with the nuclear black market, the fact that the program was kept secret for so long, and the fact that weapons grade plutonium has been found in the country by IAEA inspectors, all support my idea that Iran is definitely pursuing atomic arms.

2. They will stall for time while they finish the engineering. It worked for N. Korea, why not for Iran? With President Bush's political capital exhausted and the US military busy with Iraq and friendly relations with Russia, there is no real threat of military intervention. This means that the preferred method of handling the situation is diplomatic, and the shitty thing about diplomacy is that it takes FOREVER, especially if one side is actively trying to stall the process. (again, like North Korea did) They can walk out temporarily, stonewall on some detail, or otherwise be obstinate, and it's all perfectly acceptable in the course of peaceful diplomatic negotiations because no one is shooting at each other.

The EU is handling this round. Well, trying to. The US has handed the 'diplomatic situation' ball off to the EU for 2 reasons I think: #1, the US has a highly antagonistic relationship with Iran and no diplomatic relations. There's no reason to think that they would listen to us, or us to them, and #2, to give the Europeans a taste of the kind of people that we have to deal with regularly as a status-quo enforcing hegemon. Kind of a, "You think we're doing this badly? Fine, YOU deal with them. We're going home." And it looks like maybe the Europussies will get something done! A referral to the UN Sec. Council is nothing but a gentle scolding, since anything stronger will be vetoed, but at least *something* would be done. And depending on how things unfolded, political pressure could be put on Russia and China later. Maybe there's progress!

3. Or not.

He also said turning the matter over to the U.N. Security Council, which can impose sanctions on the country, was not an immediate answer.

"Let us not think we should jump the gun, and use enforcement," ElBaradei said. "You still have to go back to the negotiating table afterward."

The laureate said there is no reason to suspect that Iran already has nuclear weapons, and urged the eight or nine countries that already do have atomic warheads to reconsider their policies.

"If you really want to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, the nations that have them should lead the way," ElBaradei said.

Um, did he just suggest that even though Iran is pursuing nuclear arms, (but doesn't have them yet!) they shouldn't be referred to the UN ("Enforcement," heavens forbid), and they can't really be expected to stop anyway until rest of the world's nations disarm first? That somehow, proliferation will cease if only the nuclear club will see the light? Is he on crack? The lack of any nuclear armed rivals makes the pursuit of nuclear arms even MORE worthwhile for the sheer power and influence you would have in relation to peers. What, then, would deter Iran from dropping a Shahab onto Tel Aviv? Perhaps I spoke too soon about progress.

So there's nothing really to interrupt Iran's process of development. The UN agency responsible for preventing this kind of thing has a spotty record and seems to be in no hurry to actually try to enforce the provisions of the treaty that for which they are supposed to monitor compliance, and the nations trying to negotiate this issue have kind of a reputation (excluding the British) for having no spine internationally unless it involves Turkey.

And once Iran gets "the bomb," who's going to take it away from them?

Then there's this little tid-bit.

15 September 2005

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says his country is willing to provide nuclear technology to Muslim states stating, "Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need."
--"Iran's President Says his Regime Prepared to give Atomic Technology to other Muslim States," Boston Herald, 15 September 2005.

Clearly, something needs to be done. Can you imagine a nuclear armed Sudan? Syria? But because of the lethargic toothlessness of the UN, the pacifistic tendencies of the EU, and the current political impotence of the US, nothing will.

There is one other possibility; an Israeli preventative strike. It's worked before, but this time it might cause somewhat more of a stir. There's a sticky little detail about such a plan, too. To get to Iran, Israeli jets would have to cross Jordanian and Iraqi (i.e. American) airspace and probably refuel as well. Iran would scream about (plausible) US complicity in the Israeli strike and could use it as a cassus belli to invade Eastern Iraq, which they are itching to do anyway. Some Iranian schemes to soften up the area for an intervention have already been foiled by the US military. You'll just have to trust me on this one.

A legend is born...

I suppose the best way to kick off my first post is to introduce myself. I'm a soldier in the US Army, married, with one dog and no kids. I don't technically have degrees in Middle Eastern Studies and International Relations yet, but I tell everyone that I do because all I've really got left to go are a foreign language (which I'm studying now) and bullshit electives to fill out credit hours. If I tried, I could get a History degree as well, but I don't think I will any time soon. I'm originally from Texas, but currently stationed on the West Coast. I'm not a Republican, but I really hate the Democrats. I'm a lifelong gamer, meaning Roleplaying Games, Wargames, Card Games, whatever. I have neither the time nor the inclination to dredge through obscure Internet sites looking for tidbits of scandal and what not for which bloggers have become famous. You're far more likely to get opinions or analysis out of me than news.

Oh, as for my Weblog title I flipped through one of my Qu'rans looking for something to jump out at me, and the phrase "Black Faced Sinner" did. Since I tend to be irreligious anyway, I thought it appropriate. I suppose I can always change it later if I really feel like it.

That'll do. I'll go look for some current event to post and act all indignant and outraged about so that y'all feel at home.