Thursday, October 20, 2011
Khadaffi Dead
It's all over the news this morning that Mummar Khadaffi (however one spells the name) is dead of acute lead poisoning of the brain. The Libyan dictator allegedly was first shot in both legs, then in the head, following which the anti-Khadaffi people who shot him removed one of his shoes and beat him with it. It is my understanding that this is one of the most vile things one Muslim can do to another.
Couldn't have happened to a more deserving fellow.
(0) comments
Couldn't have happened to a more deserving fellow.
Labels: dictators, Kadafi, Libya
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
The "Occupiers"
After several weeks now of the "occupiers" on Wall Street, in DC and dozens of other cities, it seems to me, based on the statements I've heard on TV and radio, and on the signs I've seen on TV and the Internet, that the "occupiers" are a bunch of spoiled brats who want something for nothing, and they don't want "the greedy rich" to have anything more than they do. The fact that the "greedy rich" have worked hard and risked their own money to invest in their own businesses or others doesn't matter--the "occupiers" want the same thing with no work and no risk. I have to ask, what are they smoking?
The problem with "something for nothing" is that if it happens it all it doesn't last very long, because pretty soon there's no "something" left and those who can produce the "something" won't do it for "nothing". That, in a nutshell, is the lesson of Atlas Shrugged.
The ultimate "something for nothing" behavior is looting and robbery. I somehow doubt those "occupiers" would enjoy living in a society where the only law is the law of the jungle. Nor would they enjoy living in a society where the government tells you where to work and what work to do, and where everyone has the same standard of living irrespective of talent, ability, drive and ambition, which doesn't really exist and hasn't ever existed, because there are always "fat cats" of one kind or another, whether business tycoons, dictators or royalty. In short, that society would be made up of slaves and slave drivers. At least in today's America, the "fat cats" came by their wealth without murdering or imprisoning anyone. Idi Amin, anyone? Or maybe Mugabe, or closer to home, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez? I hereby invite anyone who thinks those societies are better than the USA to move there--permanently.
(0) comments
The problem with "something for nothing" is that if it happens it all it doesn't last very long, because pretty soon there's no "something" left and those who can produce the "something" won't do it for "nothing". That, in a nutshell, is the lesson of Atlas Shrugged.
The ultimate "something for nothing" behavior is looting and robbery. I somehow doubt those "occupiers" would enjoy living in a society where the only law is the law of the jungle. Nor would they enjoy living in a society where the government tells you where to work and what work to do, and where everyone has the same standard of living irrespective of talent, ability, drive and ambition, which doesn't really exist and hasn't ever existed, because there are always "fat cats" of one kind or another, whether business tycoons, dictators or royalty. In short, that society would be made up of slaves and slave drivers. At least in today's America, the "fat cats" came by their wealth without murdering or imprisoning anyone. Idi Amin, anyone? Or maybe Mugabe, or closer to home, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez? I hereby invite anyone who thinks those societies are better than the USA to move there--permanently.
Labels: Cuba, dictators, Economics, Occupy Wall Street
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Obama In Libya
First, I hope the current campaign in Libya succeeds in getting Kadafi (spelled phonetically because the "preferred" spelling seems to change by the hour) to go away. Preferably at room temperature in a box, to an underground destination. I bow to no one in my dislike and disgust at the man and all he stands for. In retrospect I think we probably should have declared war against Libya as soon as we discovered it was behind the Lockerbie bombing of PanAm 103, which at the latest would be 24 February 2011, when resigned justice minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil revealed that Muamar Gaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing. Certainly that constituted an act of war by Kadafi under age-old principles of international law, and unlike al Qaeda, the Kadafi regime is a nation-state and precisely identifiable.
That said, Michael Barone's piece in the March 23 Washington Examiner puts into words in eloquent fashion the muddle of thoughts that have been bouncing around inside my own head for the last several days. Obama missed the optimum moment to act, then ignored Congress in favor of the UN, and acted without a plan, or at least without a plan that his administration has been willing or able to discuss coherently in public. As a result, I, along with Mr. Barone, am not at all confident that Kadafi will be ousted. If he survives, Obama (and unfortunately America) will suffer a significant loss of prestige and, more importantly, respect in the world.
The most unnerving thing to me about Obama's adventure is, although he ignored Congress he made sure to obtain UN approval for the action. That suggests to me that Obama considers himself more of a transnationalist than the President of the United States; that, together with his apparent willingness to put US military forces at the disposal of commanders from foreign countries, sets some very dangerous precedents in my opinion. It reinforces my oft-expressed opinion that Obama is either incompetent or the first anti-American president.
Another troublesome factor in Obama's lead-from-the-rear behavior is that we appear to be trying to do this on the cheap. This I attribute to the fact that, due to the profligate spending of Congress since 2007 (when the Democrat Party won its majority) and especially since the beginning of Obama's term, the country is broke. That is, we can't afford do do more. I am concerned that Obama and the rest of the Democrat Party, if not our whole political class, won't learn the lesson that excessive debt is a national security issue.
I repeat that I hope the effort to unseat Kadafi is successful, and I hope and believe that whatever takes his place won't be as bad, at least in the short term, but I am not at all confident that Obama and his merry band have the slightest idea of what they're doing.
(0) comments
That said, Michael Barone's piece in the March 23 Washington Examiner puts into words in eloquent fashion the muddle of thoughts that have been bouncing around inside my own head for the last several days. Obama missed the optimum moment to act, then ignored Congress in favor of the UN, and acted without a plan, or at least without a plan that his administration has been willing or able to discuss coherently in public. As a result, I, along with Mr. Barone, am not at all confident that Kadafi will be ousted. If he survives, Obama (and unfortunately America) will suffer a significant loss of prestige and, more importantly, respect in the world.
The most unnerving thing to me about Obama's adventure is, although he ignored Congress he made sure to obtain UN approval for the action. That suggests to me that Obama considers himself more of a transnationalist than the President of the United States; that, together with his apparent willingness to put US military forces at the disposal of commanders from foreign countries, sets some very dangerous precedents in my opinion. It reinforces my oft-expressed opinion that Obama is either incompetent or the first anti-American president.
Another troublesome factor in Obama's lead-from-the-rear behavior is that we appear to be trying to do this on the cheap. This I attribute to the fact that, due to the profligate spending of Congress since 2007 (when the Democrat Party won its majority) and especially since the beginning of Obama's term, the country is broke. That is, we can't afford do do more. I am concerned that Obama and the rest of the Democrat Party, if not our whole political class, won't learn the lesson that excessive debt is a national security issue.
I repeat that I hope the effort to unseat Kadafi is successful, and I hope and believe that whatever takes his place won't be as bad, at least in the short term, but I am not at all confident that Obama and his merry band have the slightest idea of what they're doing.
Labels: Congress, Debt, defense, Democrats, dictators, Kadafi, Libya, Obama, Terrorism, United Nations
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Almost every high school graduate who reads knows the quote that is the title to this post (or some version of it), from George Santayana. Here is the quote with some context:
(0) comments
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. The Life of Reason, Vol. 1, Ch. XII.
I am reading The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich, by William L. Shirer. It is an eyewitness account by a renowned journalist and historian of how Hitler came to power in Germany, how he Nazified the country and started World War II, and how he ultimately perished along with everything he had created. In addition to reporting the news as it happened in the late 1930s from his posts in Berlin and Vienna for Universal News Network and CBS, Shirer had extraordinary access to the records and documents collected for and generated by the Nuremburg trials, whether or not they were introduced as evidence. When the work was first published, in 1960 it was a sensational best seller. I'm not sure it would be so popular today because it is long and dense with information, and I don't know if a lot of modern Americans would have the patience to plow through it. That said, like most historical works it contains many ideas and concepts applicable to our contemporary world.
For example, I am struck by how closely the behavior of the British and French, and the League of Nations vis a vis Hitler in 1936-38 is paralleled by the West and the United Nations with regard to Iran's Ahmadinejad. In both cases, the dictator signaled well ahead of time what his plans were, and his feckless opponents refused to take him seriously. When Hitler finally could not be ignored, the British and French opted for appeasement rather than confrontation, much like the US and European powers are opting for negotiation and dialogue with Ahmadinejad rather than taking action, and for many of the same reasons. I am also struck by how much the behavior of Ahmadinejad (and other dictators of the day) resembles Hitler's behavior--as if they're reading from the same playbook (I plan a future post detailing the techniques Hitler used to become Der Fuehrer without violating the letter of German law at the time). There are also similarities between Germany in the 1930s and Iran today.
Because of these parallels I am becoming alarmed that we are condemned to repeat history, and soon. Karl Marx said, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." I have a very uneasy feeling that in the case of Iran we will experience the first repetition, not the second.
For example, I am struck by how closely the behavior of the British and French, and the League of Nations vis a vis Hitler in 1936-38 is paralleled by the West and the United Nations with regard to Iran's Ahmadinejad. In both cases, the dictator signaled well ahead of time what his plans were, and his feckless opponents refused to take him seriously. When Hitler finally could not be ignored, the British and French opted for appeasement rather than confrontation, much like the US and European powers are opting for negotiation and dialogue with Ahmadinejad rather than taking action, and for many of the same reasons. I am also struck by how much the behavior of Ahmadinejad (and other dictators of the day) resembles Hitler's behavior--as if they're reading from the same playbook (I plan a future post detailing the techniques Hitler used to become Der Fuehrer without violating the letter of German law at the time). There are also similarities between Germany in the 1930s and Iran today.
Because of these parallels I am becoming alarmed that we are condemned to repeat history, and soon. Karl Marx said, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." I have a very uneasy feeling that in the case of Iran we will experience the first repetition, not the second.
Labels: dictators, France, Germany, Great Britain, History, Hitler, Iran, United Nations
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Iran's 10 New Nuke Plants
Iran announced today that it intends to build ten new uranium enrichment plants, with construction to begin as early as January 2010. The plants are to be hardened against attack by building them inside mountains. This announcement came only days after the IAEA dumped on Iran for lack of cooperation, with the outgoing director Mohammed El Baradei saying the IAEA's monitoring of Iran's nuclear efforts is "at a dead end." For Iran's part, its Vice President Salehi said that the announcement was a response to the IAEA.
This morning I saw a short interview on Fox News Sunday with a man who I believe is the former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, who sounded like Israel is ready, willing and able to carry out a preemptive strike on Iran whether or not the UN, the US or anyone else is on board with the idea.
Not. Good.
This will be a gut check for the United Nations. If it cannot agree on something relatively harsh to punish Iran for its intransigence, the UN will be starkly exposed as ineffectual. This will be duly noted not only by Iran, but also by other dictators around the world. Hugo Chavez comes to mind.
What scares me most is that I don't think our current president has either the intellect, inclination or cojones to do anything about Iran, whether or not the UN approves. I think that opinion is shared by Ahmahdinejad, Chavez and the like.
(0) comments
This morning I saw a short interview on Fox News Sunday with a man who I believe is the former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, who sounded like Israel is ready, willing and able to carry out a preemptive strike on Iran whether or not the UN, the US or anyone else is on board with the idea.
Not. Good.
This will be a gut check for the United Nations. If it cannot agree on something relatively harsh to punish Iran for its intransigence, the UN will be starkly exposed as ineffectual. This will be duly noted not only by Iran, but also by other dictators around the world. Hugo Chavez comes to mind.
What scares me most is that I don't think our current president has either the intellect, inclination or cojones to do anything about Iran, whether or not the UN approves. I think that opinion is shared by Ahmahdinejad, Chavez and the like.
Labels: dictators, Iran, Israel, Obama, United Nations
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Sheesh!!!!
Claudia Rosett posted this yesterday. "To chair the 2009 governing board of the U.N.'s flagship agency, the multibillion-dollar globe-girdling United Nations Development Program, dedicated to promoting good governance and ending poverty, the U.N. has now picked--wait for it--the Islamic Republic of Iran."
Criminitleys! Is there no end to stupidity and fecklessness at the UN?
Ms. Rosett asks, "What are Barack Obama and Susan Rice planning to do about this?" Indeed, but I would also ask what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would propose.
I would hope that the United States will immediately announce that it is withholding all funds from the UNDP until such time as Iran is no longer in any position of authority or influence in that agency, but with the new crowd in Washington, I'm pessimistic. I hope they aren't as suicidal as I fear they are.
Thanks to Instapundit for the pointer.
(0) comments
Criminitleys! Is there no end to stupidity and fecklessness at the UN?
Ms. Rosett asks, "What are Barack Obama and Susan Rice planning to do about this?" Indeed, but I would also ask what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would propose.
I would hope that the United States will immediately announce that it is withholding all funds from the UNDP until such time as Iran is no longer in any position of authority or influence in that agency, but with the new crowd in Washington, I'm pessimistic. I hope they aren't as suicidal as I fear they are.
Thanks to Instapundit for the pointer.
Labels: dictators, diplomacy, Iran, United Nations
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Kim Jong Ill?
Yes, it's a pun.
Fox News is reporting that Kim Jong Il, North Korean dictator and demigod, might have suffered a stroke last month and may be "gravely ill". Some intelligence reports suggest Kim might be wheelchair-bound.
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
If Kim dies, I'm sure there'll be a major power struggle among his generals. The best thing that could happen in the long run may be anarchy, because only by means of a complete break with the Kim regime-father and son-can North Korea begin its journey back into the community of sane nations.
Many would die, but many are dying now of starvation and illness. I pray for the people of North Korea, and for the end of the Kim dynasty.
(0) comments
Fox News is reporting that Kim Jong Il, North Korean dictator and demigod, might have suffered a stroke last month and may be "gravely ill". Some intelligence reports suggest Kim might be wheelchair-bound.
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
If Kim dies, I'm sure there'll be a major power struggle among his generals. The best thing that could happen in the long run may be anarchy, because only by means of a complete break with the Kim regime-father and son-can North Korea begin its journey back into the community of sane nations.
Many would die, but many are dying now of starvation and illness. I pray for the people of North Korea, and for the end of the Kim dynasty.
Labels: dictators, diplomacy, intelligence, Korea
