Off the coast of Somalia during the last week pirates had taken hostage Captain Richard Phillips from his ship, the Maesrsk Alabama. He had tried to fight off the pirates but had, when the effort proved futile, given himself in exchange for his crew.
Since then Phillips had been in a small covered life raft with his four captors, as ransom demands were discussed between them and the negotiators from the FBI. The Americans stood firm in the face of these financial demands, refusing to pay any money.
There are times when the good guys win, and the bad boys get what they deserve. Over the Easter weekend there was such an outcome as U.S. Navy Seals aboard the warship Bainbridge shot dead three of the pirates and captured the fourth.
Previously there had been an agreement in place to swap the Captain with a pirate that his crew had captured during the initial battle, but they reneged on their promise as soon as their man was returned to them.
The shootings took place when the Navy Seals witnessed the pirates pointing their guns at Captain Phillips and considered his life to be in imminent danger. Their rules of engagement, specifically at the orders of President Obama, were that the US Navy Commander on site, Frank Castallano, had the right to issue the shoot to kill order in those circumstances, which he exercised.
The crew of the Maersk Alabama celebrated wildly at news of the successful release of their heroic Captain whose family was also overjoyed to hear of the happy outcome.
President Obama said, “I share the country’s admiration for the bravery of Captain Phillips and his selfless concern for his crew.
His courage is a model for all Americans. His safety has been our primary concern.” He went on to add that he was proud of the way the military had handled the crisis.
This must be the first step in a concerted, long term and coordinated international assault to achieve total elimination of the pirates, their bases and infrastructure.
In the words of the Navy Seals, “The only easy day was yesterday.”
Monday, April 13, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
SpinnersandFakers
Those that live by the spin will also die by the spin. Everything stinks about the latest scandal in which one of the most senior aides to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Special Adviser Damien McBride, resigned Saturday after he circulated untrue and scurrilous rumors about leaders of Britain’s Conservative Party, including David Cameron.
There are two things very wrong about this story. First, the accusations made against the Conservative leaders are outright lies and should not have been fabricated or disseminated, particularly on government time from within the seat of government.
10 Downing Street is not the place for Labour party spin, especially, and this is the second major strand of guilt, when McBride was a Civil Servant, paid for by the public purse, he is not a Labour party employee.
McBride had to resign after a newspaper published a summary of emails he sent to prominent political blogger Derek Draper, a supporter of the ruling Labour party. No doubt it was the Prime Minister who required McBride’s sacrificial removal.
McBride is to Brown what Alastair Campbell was to previous Prime Minister Tony Blair, another spin-doctor. Like we need another bloody spin-doctor. McBride is the very closest of Brown’s political allies, an attack dog who is at the epicenter of Britain’s ruling Labour party elite. He is also a long term intimate friend of the Prime Minister and might well survive in some mutated form in the Labour party’s murky political backwaters.
Is it only me that remembers how Gordon Brown made speeches that under his leadership the days of political spin would be over? Another lie.
Draper said the emails, sent in January, were intended to provide fodder for a gossip website called "The Red Rag" which would attack members of the opposition Conservative party. But in a post to his blog, Labour List, he noted that the website never got off the ground and that the personal attacks were never published.
"In truth these (rumors) were a bit juvenile and inappropriate, and some were in bad taste, though I have to admit some were also brilliant and rather funny," Draper wrote. "As anyone involved in politics knows, though, people come up with lots of daft plans that don't make it off the drawing board."
He did not go into detail about what the stories were and in an interview perversely still tried to defend and justified McBride’s actions with an attack on the media that is publishing them. Draper’s contention being that the perpetrator, McBride, wasn’t really going to pursue these false and childish stories, forgetting that his friend, McBride, had totally fabricated them in the first place. Such warped logic tells you everything about the paranoia and craziness now surrounding the British Prime Minister. 10 Downing Street is beginning to look like the Nixon White House after Watergate.
The Daily Telegraph newspaper said the emails made "innuendo-laden suggestions" about the private lives of Conservative party leaders - but also did not go into any detail.
Brown said in a statement released by his office that there was "no place in politics for the dissemination or publication of material of this kind," without discussing what it said or recognizing that Brown, being the boss behind McBride, shares a great deal of responsibility for the actions of those he hires.
Today the media published the emails – some of them complete with the lurid allegations in them. Like Watergate this small scandal reinforces my view that the people charged with the government of our great democracies are themselves seized by pettiness and stupidity lent to them by their total isolation from reality, otherwise how could they be this stupid.
There are two things very wrong about this story. First, the accusations made against the Conservative leaders are outright lies and should not have been fabricated or disseminated, particularly on government time from within the seat of government.
10 Downing Street is not the place for Labour party spin, especially, and this is the second major strand of guilt, when McBride was a Civil Servant, paid for by the public purse, he is not a Labour party employee.
McBride had to resign after a newspaper published a summary of emails he sent to prominent political blogger Derek Draper, a supporter of the ruling Labour party. No doubt it was the Prime Minister who required McBride’s sacrificial removal.
McBride is to Brown what Alastair Campbell was to previous Prime Minister Tony Blair, another spin-doctor. Like we need another bloody spin-doctor. McBride is the very closest of Brown’s political allies, an attack dog who is at the epicenter of Britain’s ruling Labour party elite. He is also a long term intimate friend of the Prime Minister and might well survive in some mutated form in the Labour party’s murky political backwaters.
Is it only me that remembers how Gordon Brown made speeches that under his leadership the days of political spin would be over? Another lie.
Draper said the emails, sent in January, were intended to provide fodder for a gossip website called "The Red Rag" which would attack members of the opposition Conservative party. But in a post to his blog, Labour List, he noted that the website never got off the ground and that the personal attacks were never published.
"In truth these (rumors) were a bit juvenile and inappropriate, and some were in bad taste, though I have to admit some were also brilliant and rather funny," Draper wrote. "As anyone involved in politics knows, though, people come up with lots of daft plans that don't make it off the drawing board."
He did not go into detail about what the stories were and in an interview perversely still tried to defend and justified McBride’s actions with an attack on the media that is publishing them. Draper’s contention being that the perpetrator, McBride, wasn’t really going to pursue these false and childish stories, forgetting that his friend, McBride, had totally fabricated them in the first place. Such warped logic tells you everything about the paranoia and craziness now surrounding the British Prime Minister. 10 Downing Street is beginning to look like the Nixon White House after Watergate.
The Daily Telegraph newspaper said the emails made "innuendo-laden suggestions" about the private lives of Conservative party leaders - but also did not go into any detail.
Brown said in a statement released by his office that there was "no place in politics for the dissemination or publication of material of this kind," without discussing what it said or recognizing that Brown, being the boss behind McBride, shares a great deal of responsibility for the actions of those he hires.
Today the media published the emails – some of them complete with the lurid allegations in them. Like Watergate this small scandal reinforces my view that the people charged with the government of our great democracies are themselves seized by pettiness and stupidity lent to them by their total isolation from reality, otherwise how could they be this stupid.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
FakeStudentsAReaction
Yesterday’s column was about the Fake Students coming into the UK (and the same things are happening elsewhere!) and the threat this is to our security. I wrote from personal experience working in British universities and my knowledge of how our systems are allowing in people who not only want to economically immigrate, but also the hateful minority who hate our society, and want us all subjugated to their will, failing which they want us dead.
Your responses were passionate and well informed, and I have decided to print one of them, since John makes some important points.
“Great stuff Tony.
The access for Foreign Students to UK Universities and I daresay all Western
Universities including the USA without the appropriate diligence &
background checks can only be described as gross negligence and totally Irresponsible on the part of overworked & underpaid University Staff
members.
The absence of stringent due diligence represents a huge potential threat to National Security to all Western countries.
It must be understood that the age group making applications to western
Universities outside their own country are the most vulnerable age group to be influenced by educational & religious establishments, which are fertile hunting grounds for extremist groups actively harvesting recruits for
deployment in the West. Either as long term "Sleepers" to be activated
In the medium or long term future or as provocateurs with an immediate
missions to subvert the youth of long established law abiding and productive immigrant communities residing in the West.
Unfortunately, again it's all about the bottom line.
Universities under immense pressure to fulfill their quota of paying students
for their own economic survival represent and ill informed focus on the
numbers.
The huge and additional expense required by Western National Security
Agencies in vetting EACH & EVERY application by Foreign Students wishing to enter Western Educational Institutions represent a quantum increase of the resources required. And I don't suggest just cursory checks.!!!
I would not be surprised that 99% of all foreign students making
applications to Western Educational Institutions will pass the stringent
security Litmus Test with flying colors and prove and to be 100% legitimate and ideologically benign.
It is assumed that 100% of all foreign students who have graduated at
Western Educational Institutions will do their damndest to remain in the
West and not return to their country of origin. Most will find good jobs
pay their taxes and make a valuable contribution to the economy, science and society in general.
As always it is the virulent and committed extremist fringe that are of
major concern.
As the good chairman Mao once said, " it does not take much explosives
material to derail a freight train coming down the railroad track. A tiny
charge strategically placed will have the desired effect and cause chaos.
John”
Your responses were passionate and well informed, and I have decided to print one of them, since John makes some important points.
“Great stuff Tony.
The access for Foreign Students to UK Universities and I daresay all Western
Universities including the USA without the appropriate diligence &
background checks can only be described as gross negligence and totally Irresponsible on the part of overworked & underpaid University Staff
members.
The absence of stringent due diligence represents a huge potential threat to National Security to all Western countries.
It must be understood that the age group making applications to western
Universities outside their own country are the most vulnerable age group to be influenced by educational & religious establishments, which are fertile hunting grounds for extremist groups actively harvesting recruits for
deployment in the West. Either as long term "Sleepers" to be activated
In the medium or long term future or as provocateurs with an immediate
missions to subvert the youth of long established law abiding and productive immigrant communities residing in the West.
Unfortunately, again it's all about the bottom line.
Universities under immense pressure to fulfill their quota of paying students
for their own economic survival represent and ill informed focus on the
numbers.
The huge and additional expense required by Western National Security
Agencies in vetting EACH & EVERY application by Foreign Students wishing to enter Western Educational Institutions represent a quantum increase of the resources required. And I don't suggest just cursory checks.!!!
I would not be surprised that 99% of all foreign students making
applications to Western Educational Institutions will pass the stringent
security Litmus Test with flying colors and prove and to be 100% legitimate and ideologically benign.
It is assumed that 100% of all foreign students who have graduated at
Western Educational Institutions will do their damndest to remain in the
West and not return to their country of origin. Most will find good jobs
pay their taxes and make a valuable contribution to the economy, science and society in general.
As always it is the virulent and committed extremist fringe that are of
major concern.
As the good chairman Mao once said, " it does not take much explosives
material to derail a freight train coming down the railroad track. A tiny
charge strategically placed will have the desired effect and cause chaos.
John”
Friday, April 10, 2009
FakeStudents
Happy Easter to some of you and Happy Passover to others, and if I am missing any other festival observance forgive me.
Our subject today is the security strike by the forces of law and order that in the last couple of days swooped on a suspected terrorist cell of about a dozen people of whom 11 are in the UK on student visas.
The Pakistani government accused the UK today of not doing enough to check the 10,000 holders of such visas prior to their being able to travel.
I have some direct knowledge of the nature and scope of this dangerous and long-term immigration fiddle. Some years back I was Director of a department of a London University. There is tremendous pressure on all universities to meet student recruitment and retention target numbers. Their entire budgets are based on hitting these numbers and they will do whatever they can to meet them.
It was annual student recruitment time for the university and as usual the computer science department was a rich source of overseas students. As part of my job I was checking some of the documentation of the applicants as they went through the clearing process before entry to the university. I noticed that a very large number of these students had apparently already graduated a university in Delhi with identical degrees. This smelt fishy to me and I telephoned India to check a few sets of documents at random. It transpired that the university they had supposedly attended simply did not exist.
I told my university of this finding and they dealt with the offending applicants. I thought that my institution would automatically check all such applications. I was wrong.
It transpired that several hundred more overseas Asian students did gain entrance to our computer science department. About 400 of these student visa holders arrived on the first day of the course for signing up and induction. The next day about 225 of them vanished without trace and have never been seen since. No one knows where these people are, or what they’re doing in this country.
I was telephoned by a journalist for the Guardian newspaper who asked whether I thought it was possible that any students, such as these or others who did attend our university could be terrorists in waiting. I replied that I would be astonished if they were not. I still believe this to be the case.
Certain sections of the university admissions service remain ridiculously lax in its vigilance regarding overseas student applications and the reasons include the misguided and inappropriate application of the human rights ethos. Regulations and liberal attitudes of our educational institutions in favor of people who should not be here in the first place and who regard such rights as a validation of their view of our Western democracy; that it is both decadent and stupid. We need to wake up before it is too late.
Our subject today is the security strike by the forces of law and order that in the last couple of days swooped on a suspected terrorist cell of about a dozen people of whom 11 are in the UK on student visas.
The Pakistani government accused the UK today of not doing enough to check the 10,000 holders of such visas prior to their being able to travel.
I have some direct knowledge of the nature and scope of this dangerous and long-term immigration fiddle. Some years back I was Director of a department of a London University. There is tremendous pressure on all universities to meet student recruitment and retention target numbers. Their entire budgets are based on hitting these numbers and they will do whatever they can to meet them.
It was annual student recruitment time for the university and as usual the computer science department was a rich source of overseas students. As part of my job I was checking some of the documentation of the applicants as they went through the clearing process before entry to the university. I noticed that a very large number of these students had apparently already graduated a university in Delhi with identical degrees. This smelt fishy to me and I telephoned India to check a few sets of documents at random. It transpired that the university they had supposedly attended simply did not exist.
I told my university of this finding and they dealt with the offending applicants. I thought that my institution would automatically check all such applications. I was wrong.
It transpired that several hundred more overseas Asian students did gain entrance to our computer science department. About 400 of these student visa holders arrived on the first day of the course for signing up and induction. The next day about 225 of them vanished without trace and have never been seen since. No one knows where these people are, or what they’re doing in this country.
I was telephoned by a journalist for the Guardian newspaper who asked whether I thought it was possible that any students, such as these or others who did attend our university could be terrorists in waiting. I replied that I would be astonished if they were not. I still believe this to be the case.
Certain sections of the university admissions service remain ridiculously lax in its vigilance regarding overseas student applications and the reasons include the misguided and inappropriate application of the human rights ethos. Regulations and liberal attitudes of our educational institutions in favor of people who should not be here in the first place and who regard such rights as a validation of their view of our Western democracy; that it is both decadent and stupid. We need to wake up before it is too late.
Monday, April 6, 2009
CryRape
There is a rape crisis in the UK. Today it was revealed that a woman lied when claiming her husband had raped her. The British rape laws allow the victim anonymity whereas the alleged perpetrator can be named.
The accused man, who has now been cleared of all charges, is ruined both socially and emotionally. No one can understand the terrible damage done to an innocent man, even when acquitted. The reason the man is irreparably damaged is that there will always be those that whisper, “There’s no smoke without fire.”
I have seen the damage such an accusation can make. A colleague, a middle-aged man with a loving family, worked with a female workmate late one evening. He needed some documents to be prepared before he took a dawn flight to Australia, and she volunteered. At the end of their work it was late and the young woman asked him for a ride home.
My work friend dropped the young woman at her home but declined her invite for a drink partly because he thought she was coming onto him. She became angry when he rejected her advances but he told her he had to get home. He thought she might have been a bit drunk but took no action about it thinking he might do so when he returned from his overseas business trip.
When he returned home the police knocked on the door and his wife answered. They stormed in to the house and arrested him in front of his family. His wife was so shocked that she had a stroke very shortly thereafter. She is semi paralyzed and wheelchair bound ever since. My friend was traumatized by the experience and initially didn’t know how to deal with the accusation.
It took my colleague a while to regain his equilibrium and when he did he hired a private detective. After a thorough investigation he discovered that the woman making the accusation had done the same thing twice before, falsely accusing two other men of raping her before finally being proven to be a malicious perjurer.
When confronted with this history the woman withdrew her rape accusation. But my colleague’s wife will remain in her wheelchair for the rest of her life.
It is often noted that the vast majority of rape prosecutions do not end in conviction. But the truth is that this crime is extremely difficult to prove and often boils down to the relative believability of the protagonists. With the law being updated to keep up with changing social mores it is now accepted that the current rape laws should mean that a woman saying no, at any stage, means no.
There are further moves to interpret the law to mean that if a woman is too drunk to say no, then any sexual intercourse she later deems to have been perpetrated against her conscious will should also be deemed rape.
What strikes me, as truly menacing and stupid were the words uttered after the case of the woman who falsely accused her ex husband of rape. PC Elizabeth Graham of Durham Police domestic abuse investigation team said after the hearing that the force was very victim-focused and the allegation of rape had been taken seriously and fully investigated.
She went on to correctly say that she hoped the case would not deter genuine victims of rape and sexual assault from reporting crimes to the police.
Of course all of us would agree that genuine rape accusations must be made wherever necessary and then be properly investigated by the police and prosecutions made as appropriate.
But the forces of law and order should think again about being “victim-focused,” their only true aim, be “ justice focused.”
The accused man, who has now been cleared of all charges, is ruined both socially and emotionally. No one can understand the terrible damage done to an innocent man, even when acquitted. The reason the man is irreparably damaged is that there will always be those that whisper, “There’s no smoke without fire.”
I have seen the damage such an accusation can make. A colleague, a middle-aged man with a loving family, worked with a female workmate late one evening. He needed some documents to be prepared before he took a dawn flight to Australia, and she volunteered. At the end of their work it was late and the young woman asked him for a ride home.
My work friend dropped the young woman at her home but declined her invite for a drink partly because he thought she was coming onto him. She became angry when he rejected her advances but he told her he had to get home. He thought she might have been a bit drunk but took no action about it thinking he might do so when he returned from his overseas business trip.
When he returned home the police knocked on the door and his wife answered. They stormed in to the house and arrested him in front of his family. His wife was so shocked that she had a stroke very shortly thereafter. She is semi paralyzed and wheelchair bound ever since. My friend was traumatized by the experience and initially didn’t know how to deal with the accusation.
It took my colleague a while to regain his equilibrium and when he did he hired a private detective. After a thorough investigation he discovered that the woman making the accusation had done the same thing twice before, falsely accusing two other men of raping her before finally being proven to be a malicious perjurer.
When confronted with this history the woman withdrew her rape accusation. But my colleague’s wife will remain in her wheelchair for the rest of her life.
It is often noted that the vast majority of rape prosecutions do not end in conviction. But the truth is that this crime is extremely difficult to prove and often boils down to the relative believability of the protagonists. With the law being updated to keep up with changing social mores it is now accepted that the current rape laws should mean that a woman saying no, at any stage, means no.
There are further moves to interpret the law to mean that if a woman is too drunk to say no, then any sexual intercourse she later deems to have been perpetrated against her conscious will should also be deemed rape.
What strikes me, as truly menacing and stupid were the words uttered after the case of the woman who falsely accused her ex husband of rape. PC Elizabeth Graham of Durham Police domestic abuse investigation team said after the hearing that the force was very victim-focused and the allegation of rape had been taken seriously and fully investigated.
She went on to correctly say that she hoped the case would not deter genuine victims of rape and sexual assault from reporting crimes to the police.
Of course all of us would agree that genuine rape accusations must be made wherever necessary and then be properly investigated by the police and prosecutions made as appropriate.
But the forces of law and order should think again about being “victim-focused,” their only true aim, be “ justice focused.”
Sunday, April 5, 2009
AnarchyRulesOK
During the last week there were a series of huge set piece meetings held in various European cities. These were the London G20 economic summit followed by the NATO gathering of our political leaders held on the border of Germany and France.
Also present at both were protesters who are entitled, some would say obliged, to peacefully protest in our profoundly democratic countries. Their attendance and voicing of their profound disquiet about the management of the world economy and conflicts is not only fitting but essential.
What else can you do when you agree with the sentiments expressed in an article by Douglas Rushkoff called Let It Die in which he stated, "... We do not live in an economy, we live in a Ponzi scheme."
Trying to wreck these gatherings were the usual motley gang of fundamentally anti capitalist, anti democratic and anti free choice groups. These include revolutionary Trotskyites, Maoists, but more of interest to me right now, Anarchists.
Anarchy is defined in my dictionary as; Absence of government, disorder, lawlessness; The principles of anarchy are a theory of government based on the free agreement of individuals rather than a submission to law and authority and an anarchist is One opposed to all forms of government.
These days the anarchists wear a uniform for their protests. They dress all in black with hoods up and scarves around their faces to disguise their identities. It seems odd to me that people against all conformity dress identically to intimidate. But they are full of contradictions these anarchists, willing to wear a uniform, any uniform, as long as it is not a uniform in which to serve any country.
The English anarchists promised the end of capitalism would begin with their “Four Horseman” protests in London on April First, but it hasn’t worked out that way. In fact, although the systematic failures of capitalism are all around us we still haven’t devised a better system for our trade and lives to prosper.
It might seem unnecessarily jaded to state that if anarchists could ever organize anything, which is, in itself somewhat of an oxymoronic thought process, there should be an anarchists league table. I am usually proud of British accomplishments but in this instance I think the British would come woefully down the pecking order. We are, as a nation, a bit too much into organizational structures to be any good at spontaneous anarchy. You would, in my view, favor the more laid back Latin nations or perhaps the newly de-communized East Europeans to furnish the best kind of anarchists.
The police in England handled the anarchists very well and in fact the protestors finished by looking silly, their threats to “eat the bankers” ringing hollow. It wasn’t quite the same jolly affair on the borders of France and Germany where the anarchists and their fellow travelers managed to torch a few shops and other buildings, sling some Molotov cocktails and attack the police.
There is almost universal agreement that the world’s economic and terrorist problems are huge and ongoing. However the general population remains remarkably, prosperous and peaceful when compared to any other period of history. This prosperity and peace was brought about by the application of the capitalist system and organizations such as NATO. The near total collapse of the financial system and the over emphasized threat of fundamentalist Islamic terror was engendered and inspired by a toxic mixture of fear, greed and ego, topped out by a lack of transparency and unwarranted over complication. No one really understood the entirety of how sophisticated shadow trading and hedge funds worked. Concurrently we fought the terrorists in an asymmetric conflict with no strategy but armed only with knee jerk tactical reactions.
Both will now change since President Obama does have a strategic vision and the rest of the democracies are beginning to listen to and respect renewed and enhanced American leadership.
It isn’t enough to be a black clad anarchist shouting at and burning hated symbols of capitalism when you have nothing to replace it with.
Also present at both were protesters who are entitled, some would say obliged, to peacefully protest in our profoundly democratic countries. Their attendance and voicing of their profound disquiet about the management of the world economy and conflicts is not only fitting but essential.
What else can you do when you agree with the sentiments expressed in an article by Douglas Rushkoff called Let It Die in which he stated, "... We do not live in an economy, we live in a Ponzi scheme."
Trying to wreck these gatherings were the usual motley gang of fundamentally anti capitalist, anti democratic and anti free choice groups. These include revolutionary Trotskyites, Maoists, but more of interest to me right now, Anarchists.
Anarchy is defined in my dictionary as; Absence of government, disorder, lawlessness; The principles of anarchy are a theory of government based on the free agreement of individuals rather than a submission to law and authority and an anarchist is One opposed to all forms of government.
These days the anarchists wear a uniform for their protests. They dress all in black with hoods up and scarves around their faces to disguise their identities. It seems odd to me that people against all conformity dress identically to intimidate. But they are full of contradictions these anarchists, willing to wear a uniform, any uniform, as long as it is not a uniform in which to serve any country.
The English anarchists promised the end of capitalism would begin with their “Four Horseman” protests in London on April First, but it hasn’t worked out that way. In fact, although the systematic failures of capitalism are all around us we still haven’t devised a better system for our trade and lives to prosper.
It might seem unnecessarily jaded to state that if anarchists could ever organize anything, which is, in itself somewhat of an oxymoronic thought process, there should be an anarchists league table. I am usually proud of British accomplishments but in this instance I think the British would come woefully down the pecking order. We are, as a nation, a bit too much into organizational structures to be any good at spontaneous anarchy. You would, in my view, favor the more laid back Latin nations or perhaps the newly de-communized East Europeans to furnish the best kind of anarchists.
The police in England handled the anarchists very well and in fact the protestors finished by looking silly, their threats to “eat the bankers” ringing hollow. It wasn’t quite the same jolly affair on the borders of France and Germany where the anarchists and their fellow travelers managed to torch a few shops and other buildings, sling some Molotov cocktails and attack the police.
There is almost universal agreement that the world’s economic and terrorist problems are huge and ongoing. However the general population remains remarkably, prosperous and peaceful when compared to any other period of history. This prosperity and peace was brought about by the application of the capitalist system and organizations such as NATO. The near total collapse of the financial system and the over emphasized threat of fundamentalist Islamic terror was engendered and inspired by a toxic mixture of fear, greed and ego, topped out by a lack of transparency and unwarranted over complication. No one really understood the entirety of how sophisticated shadow trading and hedge funds worked. Concurrently we fought the terrorists in an asymmetric conflict with no strategy but armed only with knee jerk tactical reactions.
Both will now change since President Obama does have a strategic vision and the rest of the democracies are beginning to listen to and respect renewed and enhanced American leadership.
It isn’t enough to be a black clad anarchist shouting at and burning hated symbols of capitalism when you have nothing to replace it with.
Friday, April 3, 2009
ANewNATO
Yesterday many leaders from around the world attended the G20 summit meeting in London.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown was roundly praised for his energetic and well-conceived groundwork plus excellent negotiating skills.
President Obama was even more warmly applauded for being President Obama. But there were reservations expressed. Most of these came from the non Anglo Saxon economies that have taken it in turn to fire broadsides of criticism at the USA and UK for their previous financial indiscipline that they state caused the entire global economic problem.
Today President Sarkozy of France is hosting President Obama and the other leaders of NATO in Paris. It will be interesting to see if the French and Germans in particular, can take criticism as well as hand it out.
France recently re-joined NATO as a full member but like the other “allies” in this organization they do more talking than fighting in Afghanistan. While the UK and USA do the hard fighting the majority of the Europeans in the alliance mainly just supply technical and moral support but when it comes to their forces using force, they demonstrate everything that is hypocritical about their countries. They simply don’t and won’t fight.
This is not meant to imply that the servicemen and women from those non-fighting European allies are cowards or are in any way deficient. Their governments have forbidden them to engage the enemy under almost all circumstances.
Despite all of the NATO allies agreeing that they would fight for democracy against the theocracy of the Taliban most of the allies avoid actual fighting.
This is a disgrace and makes you wonder if allies like these are worth having. If push came to shove and we really needed our NATO allies to save our own countries could we rely on them to help?
I think this proves that we could not rely on them for anything other than kind words, if we were lucky.
Even more disgraceful the government of Afghanistan is enacting Taliban inspired laws against the rights of their own women. President Hamid Karzai was roundly condemned by internal and external groups for signing into law legislation that effectively legalizes the rape of a wife by her husband and prevents women from leaving the house without a man's permission.
This law clearly undermines hard-won rights for women enacted after the fall of the Taliban's fanatical Islamist regime. Ask yourself why our soldiers for democracy should potentially risk their lives to enforce laws such as these.
The controversial law _ which many claim was not debated in parliament _ is intended to regulate family life inside Afghanistan's Shiite community, which makes up about 20 percent of this country of 30 million people. The law does not yet affect Afghan Sunnis.
The law stipulates that the wife "is bound to preen for her husband as and when he desires."
"As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night," Article 132 of the law says. "Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband."
One provision of the law does seem to protect the woman's right to sex inside marriage, saying that the "man should not avoid having sexual relations with his wife longer than once every four months."
Critics claim that President Karzai signed the legislation for purely political gain several months before the country's presidential election.
The United Nations Development Fund for Women said the law "legalizes the rape of a wife by her husband."
"The law violates women's rights and human rights in numerous ways," a UNIFEM statement said.
The issue of women's rights is an ongoing fight between the country's conservative establishment and the relatively more liberal members of society. The Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 banned women from appearing in public without a body-covering burqa and a male escort from her family.
There are two big questions that have to be answered.
One is whether we should continue to support a government that seems to be morphing into a pale imitation of the Taliban maniacs it is there to replace.
The second question is what kind of alliance is NATO, and why are there two levels of membership?
These are hard questions that all the members of the organization must answer.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown was roundly praised for his energetic and well-conceived groundwork plus excellent negotiating skills.
President Obama was even more warmly applauded for being President Obama. But there were reservations expressed. Most of these came from the non Anglo Saxon economies that have taken it in turn to fire broadsides of criticism at the USA and UK for their previous financial indiscipline that they state caused the entire global economic problem.
Today President Sarkozy of France is hosting President Obama and the other leaders of NATO in Paris. It will be interesting to see if the French and Germans in particular, can take criticism as well as hand it out.
France recently re-joined NATO as a full member but like the other “allies” in this organization they do more talking than fighting in Afghanistan. While the UK and USA do the hard fighting the majority of the Europeans in the alliance mainly just supply technical and moral support but when it comes to their forces using force, they demonstrate everything that is hypocritical about their countries. They simply don’t and won’t fight.
This is not meant to imply that the servicemen and women from those non-fighting European allies are cowards or are in any way deficient. Their governments have forbidden them to engage the enemy under almost all circumstances.
Despite all of the NATO allies agreeing that they would fight for democracy against the theocracy of the Taliban most of the allies avoid actual fighting.
This is a disgrace and makes you wonder if allies like these are worth having. If push came to shove and we really needed our NATO allies to save our own countries could we rely on them to help?
I think this proves that we could not rely on them for anything other than kind words, if we were lucky.
Even more disgraceful the government of Afghanistan is enacting Taliban inspired laws against the rights of their own women. President Hamid Karzai was roundly condemned by internal and external groups for signing into law legislation that effectively legalizes the rape of a wife by her husband and prevents women from leaving the house without a man's permission.
This law clearly undermines hard-won rights for women enacted after the fall of the Taliban's fanatical Islamist regime. Ask yourself why our soldiers for democracy should potentially risk their lives to enforce laws such as these.
The controversial law _ which many claim was not debated in parliament _ is intended to regulate family life inside Afghanistan's Shiite community, which makes up about 20 percent of this country of 30 million people. The law does not yet affect Afghan Sunnis.
The law stipulates that the wife "is bound to preen for her husband as and when he desires."
"As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night," Article 132 of the law says. "Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband."
One provision of the law does seem to protect the woman's right to sex inside marriage, saying that the "man should not avoid having sexual relations with his wife longer than once every four months."
Critics claim that President Karzai signed the legislation for purely political gain several months before the country's presidential election.
The United Nations Development Fund for Women said the law "legalizes the rape of a wife by her husband."
"The law violates women's rights and human rights in numerous ways," a UNIFEM statement said.
The issue of women's rights is an ongoing fight between the country's conservative establishment and the relatively more liberal members of society. The Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 banned women from appearing in public without a body-covering burqa and a male escort from her family.
There are two big questions that have to be answered.
One is whether we should continue to support a government that seems to be morphing into a pale imitation of the Taliban maniacs it is there to replace.
The second question is what kind of alliance is NATO, and why are there two levels of membership?
These are hard questions that all the members of the organization must answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
