Now For Something Really Useless

Even in the limitless expanse that is the Internet it is still technically possible to waste valuable space.

The UK Independent is actually spending time and effort trying to analyze the political situation in Iran. Apparently the nut job little dictator over there has gotten himself in some hot water and is probably going to be replaced by some other nut job dictator.

The article goes into detail about the elections that brought Mahmoud into power, what his cabinet has been doing, yada, yada, yada.

What is the point of analyzing elections and polititions in a rigged system? The only people who can get elected there are people that the Ayatollah gives the ok to. One nut job religious psycho gives the big thumbs up to an army of little nut job politicians. They don't have any real power, can't really makes decisions and if they try they end up in a world of hurt. Only 13 unlucky virgins in paradise kind of hurt. That's why the coverage of Irans "protests" were so laughable. They acted like Mahmood stole that last "election" from the Persian MLK. Reform was just right around the corner if only Mir Hossein Moussavi had found a couple hanging chads somewhere.

We do all realize that he was a nut job too right? Seriously press, at what point do you guys just start running old stories from the 80's about Iran? They're all the same, just change the names; oil, oil, oil, Great Satan, Jews . . . . . . .

The best you can say about these things is that they're amusing. So desperate are the media to have a dictator to love that the just tie themselves into a knot trying to paint Raul Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, etc. in a positive light. It's like watching a three-legged dog trying to catch his own tail. A little funny and a little sad all at the same time.

When they finally get around to lauding the lack of obesity in North Korea then I'll start paying attention again. Until then I'm just going to watch some Telemundo and see if I can figure out why the midget with the axe is chasing a girl in a bikini whose riding a pig in a tuxedo. Seems like a more productive usage of my time.

A New Question

The past few days have been quite interesting on in the realm of international relations. We learned about the existence of a second Iranian nuclear facility, capable of making the high grade weapons material they obviously want.

Today, the news has been coming out about Iran test firing short to medium range missiles, clearly a threat directed at Israel and a big middle finger directed at the Western democracies.

Brazil is talking about getting nukes, China is showing off new missiles and Venezuela is in favor of all of it so long as it makes the Americans look foolish.

And make us look foolish it does, while our Utopian Dreamer in Chief waxes on and on about a world free of nukes, the rest of the world sees the human nature and the state of the world as it really is and is arming itself accordingly.

The worls has also apparently lost faith in the United States. French President Sarkozy is openly ripping Obama's UN speech, Irans President nutjob claims the US supports him and British PM Gordon Brown looks sick as a dog every time he stands behind Obama, listening to some speech about sanctions.

The situation on everyone's mind is the supposed showdown between Iran and the United States. I've got bad news friends, that showdown already happened and Iran won. If they are willing to openly admit to the second facility, you know they secretly have much more ready to go. I wouldn't be surprised if the already have all the weapons grade material they need and are close to the warhead/trigger system needed to mount a hot warhead to a new medium range ballistic missile.

The Western world has shown its weakness and allowed an absolute lunatic regime, threatening to obliterate another nation, to develop nukes. That deal is done.

The question everybody should be asking is if Israel, head firmly on the chopping block, should fire up one of its nuclear missiles and preemptivly obliterate Iran.

I say yes.

Israel has beaten back hordes of invaders for more years than any one nation should have too. After the United Nations granted Israel statehood, it promptly abandoned them and became and increasingly anti-Semitic organization, regularly condemning the Jews for not giving up large chunk of their tiny country to the Palestinians, who have no legitimate claim to the area. No such requests have ever been made of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Kuwait, or any of the other Muslim nations that have land that used to be part of the Palestinian Mandate, formerly under British control.

Given the increasing evidence that the United States will abandon them in this conflict, Israel must ask themselves whether any other nuclear power will aid them. India? No, China, Pakistan, North Korea or Russia? Please. That leaves only the British and French to possibly stand up to the Iranians. Sarkozy is a good man but I don't think he has the political capital to reasonably threaten Iran. The French military isn't quite up to snuff at the moment and actually using a nuclear weapon might actually bring about the sixth Republic. France has a sizable anti-French Islamic movement already within its borders and a general weariness to war. As for the British, god bless the Brits but they are already war weary from Afghanistan and have been shamed recently by the poor state of readiness of the military. A recent report showed that the British army was too fat and had not enough warrior spirit to be combat effective. That also leaves them only a nuclear deterrent. Unfortunately, Gordon Brown is near to a vote of no confidence. Unless taking a stand to defend Israel somehow would unify the country around him (highly unlikely) he simply doesn't have enough legitimate public support to even threaten nuclear deterrent.

This is Israels dilemma. One thing that usually weighs in favor of the Jews is that the hostile nations that surround it rarely are on the same page and work together to try and destroy Israel. With a powerful lead nation backed by nukes and without meaningful western opposition however, all the Muslim nations might find this the opportune time to band together and finish off Israel for good.

Israel has long been a military powerhouse but it seems unlikely that they could withstand that assault without significant assistance. That's why they need to remove Iran's nuclear capabilities with one hundred percent certainty. Nobody is absolutely sure how much firepower the Jews have but after all this time it should be assumed they have more than a few nukes. They need to use a couple and eliminate the Iranian threat.

This would predictably cause an uproar from the worlds delusional liberal types and madmen dictators. They hate Israel and always have but all their chattering would amount to just words. As we've seen, the threats of other democracies mean little and tinpot dictators use Israel as a foil for their complaints. They cannot threaten the Jews militarily.

Besides, the Western democracies have only themselves to blame for this. Years of browbeating Israel and placating genocidal regimes has fostered an environment where the leader of a terrorist state could openly develop nuclear weapons while threatening to use said weapons to wipe another nation state off the map all without any significant response from the world at large.

Should a serious conflict arise, nuclear or conventional, the first casualty should be the United Nations. Had they even paid slight attention to their own charter, Israel would not be in a position to fend off another genocidal nation all by itself. It is a shameful dereliction of its fundamental principle, that this exact situation would be prevented. The second casualty should be the liberal world viewpoint. Given a prime opportunity to prove that collective deterrent through institutions and dialogue is more effective than the realist deterrent through military capability and leverage, liberalism has failed miserably. This isn't the first time but hopefully it will be the last. No longer should any realist have to be lectured about warmongering or diplomacy. The majority of this earth is still governed by aggression and the unequal balance of power and we need to stop pretending it isn't. The Western democracies, living in peace with guaranteed liberties, etc. need to accept the fact that at this moment in time, liberty and freedom are the exception not the rule and that it needs to be defended aggressively. If that point has to be made with a mushroom cloud, and it seems it does, I hope it's in Tehran and not Tel Aviv. The world has enough dictators but it's sorely lacking in freedom.

Somebody Get A Tape Measure!

Our feisty Secretary of State declared that Iran would never be allowed to have nukes and that their pursuit was futile this morning on Meet the Press.

It would seem that Mrs. Clinton has bigger stones on this subject than our timid Commander in Chief.

It's hard to take this declaration by Mrs. Clinton seriously though. No Secretary of State has ever been as marginalized as she is now. Obama clearly uses other czars and microteams to truly handle his foreign policy issues. So far, Obama has shown no inclination to stop Iran from doing anything, let alone stop making nukes, a stated national priority for the Iranians.

This tempter tantrum is more likely the result of Hillary finally trying to exert some influence over world affairs. It's clear that Obama offered her that job as a way to remove her and her husband from the realm of international affairs. Job well done, I must say. Hillary has been near invisible in her role when I'm sure she thought she would be a major policy maker in the new Administration. Far from that, she spends most of her time apoligizing for American activities around the globe and getting lectured by the Indians and Chinese about how stupid global warming and CO2 emissions are. Rightfully so I might add.

I hope Hillary's supporters got a good taste of her this morning, I'm sure tomorrow she's off to Basque to apologize for the weather and Americans lack of interest in Jai Alai. With grace and dignity, no doubt.

The Temerity of Sophistic Hubris

Another day and another incoherent set of position from the administration concerning the situation in Iran which now resembles a full-on war zone complete with death, tear gas and atrocities.

Despite the images being sent out of Iran by brave bloggers and twitterers, all we heard from the White House was administration mouthpiece Robert Gibbs mumbling about the possible injustices done towards women in Iran.

Wow, women being abused in Iran, I wonder how deep undercover the C.I.A. went to find out that nugget of information.

Why can't Obama just support freedom, whereever it springs to life? It costs him nothing and could mean so much. It's getting so bad that noodle-spined Senator Lindsey Graham actually came out of his hidey hole to call the Presidents response timid and weak while French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel are now the front line defenders of democracy and freedom in the world.

Just to repeat, Lindsey Graham(!), amongst others, called the President a coward and France and Germany are now the torchbearers of Western belief.

What an awesome new world this is turning into.

Many pundits have seen this as a sign of weakness, Obama taking no position. On the contrary, by taking a vow of silence, Obama is stating clearly that he wants no such revolution to take place in Iran. You don't need to say anything to maintain the status quo.

Why Obama would want to keep a dictator in power is directly tied to ideology and arrogance. Evidence of this can be seen in all parts of his presidency.

In Iran they are openly running towards nuclear weapons while threatening Israel, blaming the U.S. for their troubles and telling the U.N. to go screw in blatant defiance of the Security Council.

Despite this, Obama is continuously pandering to Iran while lecturing the Brits, Germans, Jews, etc. about their role in world troubles. The first reason for this is simply that Obama doesn't believe in a unipolar world led by the United States. He would prefer a multipolar world led by intergovernmental organizations like the UN, NATO and the World Bank. Talking the U.S. and its allies down is a good first step for this. The second reason is pure arrogance. All the tactics Obama is trying with Iran have been tried before by the U.S. and Europe and have failed miserably. The only difference now is that Obama believes his force of will and empathy can overcome the divide where others have failed. The end result is going to be a revolution that gets crushed and Iran having nuclear missiles well within range of Israel. Try dealing with Hamas and Hezbollah backed by nukes, see how far down the roadmap to peace you get then.

The same pattern is in play in North Korea. Despite years of deals, sanctions, six-party talks and flat out bribery, North Korea now has nukes and is threatening to launch a test missile in the direction of Hawaii on the 4th of July, just to make a point. The response? Increasing the sanctions that have failed for over a decade and more talks/UN action. This strategy is based on a foundation of delusion that Kim Jong Il can be reasoned with, so long as Obama is the one doing the talking. At this point, North Korea has nothing left to sanction or penalize. Nuclear war might actually help the country. If a few million people were killed that's just that many fewer mouths to feed for the Commies. Even if a North Korean nuke couldn't make it all the way to Alaska or Hawaii, the currently technology is about 500 miles short, we do still have appx. 30,000 troops in South Korea, a fleet of ships patrolling the area and staunch ally Japan all in harms way facing devastation.

This liberal belief in dialogue and institutions to solve the worlds issues is mostly a failure even when spearheaded by normally arrogant politicians but with Obama being deluded by his own belief in his powers of persuasion the world is even more susceptible to tyranny. All the other would be crackpot dictators have stood up and taken notice of this as well, whenever Obama gives a speech ripping the U.S. and its allies and praises the very people threatening us, he may think it's opening the avenues for compromise but other leaders see what it truly is; weak, naive and an opportunity.

This arrogance is also taking shape domestically.

All of the massive spending plans enacted as part of stimulus plan, the banks being nationalized, the auto industry being nationalized, more regulation, higher taxes,
healthcare etc. have all been thrown into the works at breakneck speed.

What do all these various plans have in common? None of them work. None of them have ever worked.

History shows us what happens when countries bury themselves under an exponentially growing mountain of debt. We can see the results in Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, all the large socialist democracies in the EU, Vietnam, etc. In every instance, the cost of the bureaucracy becomes so big that it can no longer be sustained. Services get cut, inflation runs wild and joblessness and criminality rise.

All those other examples have decayed at varying speeds depending on the commitment to government expansion but they all do decay in time. The best you could say about any aspect of the socialist agenda is that it can do things as well as a free market capitalism. This may be rare but theoretically possible. Not better mind you, just even.

Knowing that railroading all these social programs in to existence won't actually help the situation the United States is in, why is Obama forcing the issue instead of using the tried and true method, used by liberals and conservatives, of long term tax cuts and stable government spending? This method increases the expectation of economic stability which encourages people to become economically active which creates growth and ends recessions.

Again the reason is twofold.

First, Obama is as liberal as they come. Leaving the fate of the country in the hands of the people simply isn't his way. The Keynesian belief that government spending, fast and furious, is what creates wealth is as true to liberals as gravity.
In addition to that, it's also a power grab. Liberals like the feeling of the government being in control of vast chunks of day-to-day life. Enacting these programs, especially healthcare, give the government control over a tremendous amount of the countries GDP. If socialized healthcare passes, the government will control over half the nations GDP and that bring a lot of power and influence with it.

The biggest reason is that Obama believes that socialist-democracies can work in the United States is because he thinks he can will it to happen. All of the past examples of complete failure don't matter and the models of success that have been used successfully for years don't matter. The only deterrent to this is the next election which is why there is such an urgency to get them all done now. Obama doesn't want to be derailed by a petty election.

Unfortunately for Obama, this kind of naive hubris always ends in disaster. In four short months one of the most historic presidents of all time has seen his approval ratings plunge into the 50's, support for his programs even lower, the most weak kneed moderate opposition is calling him a coward while members of his own party are starting to grumble and quietly distance themselves from him to maintain their own positions with their constituents. The only questions is how bad it will get before he scales back or if he even knows how to scale back. It won't be a question of intelligence but of pride. You don't get to be President by being stupid but you do get through the ranks of Chicago politics without being a cold, backstabbing, never say die son of a bitch.

President Bush held many of the same traits even if they were to different ends. When he left office he did so passing massive spending bills, bailing out business and just about turning his back on the core beliefs that got him elected twice and led him through some dark times. It's unclear if Obama has that kind of defeat in him. Should he lose the 2010 mid terms does he moderate or does he go to the mattresses?

Only time will tell but until then we all get live this Greek tragedy with him, every step, every embarrassment and every nuke of the way.

Democracy Iranian Style

Apparently, the debate is indeed "robust". More after the photos.

(I found this photo, on Andrew Sullivans blog and can be found with other news and videos from inside Iran at http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/. )

It's hard to quantify these events exactly. On one hand, it's encouraging to see the Iranians actually caring about the vote and elections in general. It shows a general level of discontent which is always a good start towards change. However, it's also incredibly sad to know that, unless a full on revolution starts, this is all completely meaningless.

Despite President Obamas self congratulatory delusion, repeated by the media, that these elections were proof of a "democratic" Iran having a serious debate about the future of the country, this election was in the bag before it even started. All presidential candidates in Iran have to be approved by the mullahs. Even if current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was replaced by challenger Mirhossein Mousavi, who cares? Lets not forget that Mousavi is the former Prime Minister of Iran (no longer a part of the Iranian political structure) who during his tenure openly started a nuclear weapons program in defiance of all the Western powers. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss indeed.

Even more disturbing is the reaction of leaders at home and abroad. After President Obama's initial views on the election have proven to be a myth, he now is proclaiming that he is "troubled" by the election, is cautioning against more bloodshed and calling upon Iran to respect the civil right to fair representation and clean elections all the while proclaiming that all nations must respect the sovereignty of the Iranians to conduct their own elections. The President has been echoed by spokesmen for the UK and France.

The idea that any of these leaders actually believe that Iran cares about clean elections, civil rights or basic human dignity is absurd. There isn't any evidence to support any conclusion other than the hard line radicals who run that country get exactly who they want in office. If Obama, or any other leader, believes the things they say about Iran then they are in a state of willful ignorance about the world and how it works. On the other hand, if they know the truth of the Iranian situation, then all this "democratic Iran" business is a deliberate attempt to deceive the people of their respective countries into believing the myth as well so that Iranian aggression can be explained away leaving the leaders to proceed with their domestic and foreign agendas without having to deal with Iran at all.

Much like the Iranian protesters can't win either way with this election, so long as Obama is either lying to himself about Iran or just lying to us, the outcome is the same; an Iran that is unchecked and dangerous.