FIRE WITH FIRE

Iran announced today that non oil exports are up 44% in the period of March through September. In fact here is a small expert and you can read the full article here.

Iran shipped 20.2% of its non-oil exports to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), 11.6 to China, eight percent to Iraq, 6.9% to Japan, 6.1 percent to India, 5.3% to Singapore, 4.6 percent to the Netherlands and 4.3 percent to Italy.

Interesting isn't it who Iran is doing trade with, and this is not even for oil. So if exports from Iran are up, that means that the world partners clearly are not going to enact sanctions against Iran in fact they are actually rewarding Iran for nuclear research by increasing their export levels with this rogue country.

Posted by The Watcher at Tuesday, October 31, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

Just what is going on with the world community and the United Nations. While self interested countries are haggling over what should be done with sanctions and Iran, Iran is forging ahead with nuclear research. In fact not only are they forging ahead, but they are re-doubling their efforts and trying to have a nuclear bomb before the world gets around to doing anything.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that France and Russia are try to soft peddle the Iranian sanctions and Iran is simply taking advantage of the delays to become nuclear!

By the time the United Nations finally resolves the issue, the sanctions will be so watered down that the only people who will be affected will be nuclear scientists on the project. Sanction will be created along these lines... scientists will be forbidden from traveling to Greenland and then only if they are going to visit their grandmother. Well something as ridiculous as that.

I just do not see that these countries who get a major portion of their oil or supply technology to Iran will pony up to the bargaining table to sign their name to a paper that will hurt their Iranian buddies. That alone is a very sad statement on what the United Nations has become; a political mouthpiece for the world where only self interest is at play.

I think that the United Nations could simply roll up its carpet and disband as clearly it can accomplish nothing, can enforce nothing, and can do nothing. I for one am not holding my breath for any kind of Iranian sanctions to be put into action now or in the near future.

Posted by The Watcher at Monday, October 30, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

The United Nations is considering more sanctions against Iran in a misguided attempt to force Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program. That worked so well with North Korea, I'm sure that Iran is just trembling with fear, on the verge of saying "uncle." Isolating North Korea and Iran just plays into the hands of their totalitarian leaders. While economic and political sanctions are considered among the world's most powerful weapons to force rogue nations back into the mainstream, they often misfire and punitive sanctions that continue to isolate countries and exacerbate their economic crises DO NOT WORK.

Politicians have been playing the blame game on Capitol Hill, quarreling over who bears the brunt of the blame for North Korea's nuclear test, Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. Writing for The New York Times, Nicholas D. Kristof had an interesting take on the argument:

"Well, Clinton inherited a situation that, if it had continued, would have resulted in North Korea having hundreds of nuclear weapons by now, and producing an additional 50 each year. Instead, Clinton negotiated a deal with North Korea that resulted in it producing not a single ounce of new plutonium in his eight years in office. In contrast, President Bush inherited that North Korean nuclear freeze and, if he had just left it alone, North Korea wouldn't have produced any new plutonium. But Bush overruled Colin Powell's efforts to continue the engagement -- and so North Korea has churned out enough plutonium on Bush's watch for perhaps eight nuclear weapons."

Pretty frightening. With two years still left in office, Bush has time to create a similar scenario in Iran. Decades of sanctions and isolation didn't work with North Korea and won't work with Iran. In fact, they have strengthened those totalitarian regimes. Designating them part of an Axis of Evil allows Bush to wash his hands of any responsibility for creating this dangerous state of affairs and precludes any attempt at a diplomatic solution.

As Kristof points out, "Look around the world at the regimes we despise: North Korea, Cuba, Burma and Iran. Those are among the world's most long-lived regimes, and that's partly because the sanctions and isolation we have imposed on them have actually propped them up, by giving those countries' leaders an excuse for their economic failures and a chance to cloak themselves in nationalism."

If sanctions are too onerous, totalitarian regimes put their backs to the wall and fight like cornered rats. Sanctions do not send them quaking, tails between their legs, to the bargaining table. They will not grovel before the world and lose the respect of their citizens. They demand their right to play with the big boys. In their own eyes they are the equal of any nation on earth and cast themselves to their citizens as Davids fighting the world's Goliaths. They will let their citizens starve and suffer and die before they knuckle under. Power is everything to these bullies and to keep it, no price is too high.

Sure, the U.N. can bloody their noses with sanctions, but that won't change their behavior. Inclusion and example are the only avenues that will effect change. By encouraging trade and other, particularly business, contacts, the people in these nations will glimpse what has been denied them by their own leaders. By seeing peace, prosperity, democratic freedom and social justice through others, they will develop a yearning to experience it for themselves. This is what will topple the regimes of the world's bullies, not isolation and sanctions.

What does Kristof suggest? He says send a score of fat, prosperous businessmen to North Korea. "In a country like North Korea, where the government responded to famine by broadcasting a cautionary documentary about a man who exploded after eating too much rice, nothing would be more subversive than tubby foreigners."

Posted by SqrlGuirl at Saturday, October 28, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

Sometimes comments on this blog can get lost. I review all of them everyday and here is one posted by LindaSoG that really deserves to be pulled out as it is highly revealing of what is actually going on at the United Nations. Although the post is long, it is definitely worth your time to review, I think that you will find her arguments well thought out with a very pointed and candid point of view on the inaptitude of the United Nations and how Israel is being persecuted by the world community instead of the real offenders across the globe. The entire comment is posted and below and was posted to the blog post "Two Readers Comments on "Greedy Israelis Must Stop Over Stepping Their Bounds".

"Ah yes, the UN, protector of terrorists and a supporter of the regimes which breed them.

When the President of the United States spoke to the United Nations in October of 2004, he spoke of the need for change and called for a new course of action against the threat of terrorism, to stop the killing of school children in Russia, the beheading of construction workers in Iraq, the murder by suicide bombers. He spoke of how, rather than engineers, doctors, scientists and social workers, the Muslim world has become the world's largest exporter of hatred and murder. He spoke of how Muslim equality for women has emerged under the guise of female suicide bombers. He spoke of the consequences of terrorism that have been perpetuated by the Muslim world for over a decade in New York, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kenya, Tanzania, and Bali, Jakarta, Moscow, Madrid and Istanbul.

The President urged action against terrorism, admitting that "for too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability." He promised to implement the radical changes that would lead to freedom, to take the fight to the enemy instead of waiting for them to come to us. He acknowledged that it would not be easy and he urged the world to unite in the effort.

What effect could such powerful words have when most of those oppressors, most of those violators of human rights and decency, most of those dictators that our President was referring to in his speech sat before him as members in good standing of the United Nations?

Sitting on UN Commission on Human Rights are some of the world's worst mass murderers and violators of the very human rights they are supposed to protect, including Cameroon, China, Congo (DRC), Cuba, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Uganda, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe. The Chairman of the Commission is one of the worst human rights offenders, Libya. These are the very same human rights violators that the Commission is supposed to investigate and expose.

No wonder, then, that the UN has failed to even criticize China's human rights violations, failed to even discuss slave labor when the former Soviet Union existed, failed to even consider the sale of white women and children in Saudi Arabia, failed to investigate the denial of the most basic human rights to women in Asia and Arab countries, and failed to examine the slave trade in Arab countries.

The Commission voted against "special observation" of Zimbabwe's violations of human rights; and voted for the upgrading of the human rights status of Sudan, even while its dictatorship committed genocide against its southern black Christians, carried on slavery, and approved of systematic rape.

Consider the actions of Commission member Cuba. Castro had thrown into prison seventy-five dissidents, including journalists and librarians; and it had executed three men who hijacked a ferryboat to escape from this communist hellhole. No matter. The Commission reelected Cuba to another three-year term, "undoubtedly a recognition of the Cuban Revolution's work in human rights in favor of all our people," so Cuba proclaimed.

Ever careful to protect itself and its member dictatorships, the UN went so far as to terminate its relationship with the free speech organization Reporters Without Borders after it criticized the UN's human rights record. Reporters Without Borders had the audacity to suggest reforms that included the restricting of voting by dictatorships and claimed "that granting the chair to Qadhafi's [Libyan] regime has been a disgrace to the commission." The Commission voted 27 to 23 to suspend its relationship with the organization. All of the democratic members voted against it.

As Victor Davis Hanson said in the Wall Street Journal, "It is not the same United Nations of decades past, helping the poor nations with hunger, and sending troops around the world to keep the peace. Gone are the days when UNESCO and UNICEF provided selfless service around the world to fight disease and famine. Now it is a political body with a different agenda. Its membership is rife with tyrannies, theocracies and Stalinist regimes."

Immediately prior to the President's speech, Kofi Anan declared the Iraq War illegal to a BBC reporter. No surprise, considering that at the time of Iraq's blatant defiance of the United Nations resolutions on its weapons of mass destruction, one of Saddam Hussein's henchmen chaired the May sessions of the UN Conference. No surprise considering Kofi Anan's participation the Oil for Food scandal currently under investigation. No surprise considering the UN was silent while Saddam Hussein starved, tortured, maimed and murdered his own people.
Indeed, the UN was silent while Slobodan Milosevic methodically practiced ethnic cleansing in his country. The UN was silent while the Taliban systematically murdered their own people, repressed all human rights, and enslaved women. The UN was silent while in Rwanda and Burundi, half a million lives were lost in civil war.

The UN was silent while 800,000 people were murdered in 1994 during a systematic genocide organized by the Hutu government, and carried out against the Tutsi minority by its troops, police, and specially trained death squads. In 1999, an independent report condemned the UN's reluctance to accept evidence of a genocide, and reluctance to act once the genocide was undeniable.

The UN was silent while in North Korea hundreds of thousands have been murdered in the last decade, and possibly three million have been starved to death in a government created famine.
The UN was silent while 8,000 Muslim men and boys were murdered in Srebrenica, Bosnia, during the Bosnian war of 1995. Another UN commissioned report on this asserted that the UN peacekeepers stood by while Serb troops massacred those to whom the UN had promised protection. The UN had refused to reinforce their peacekeepers with enough troops, and even then severely restricted the action of those that were there.

The UN was silent while over three million were killed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo with UN peacekeepers standing by and watching.

And the UN remains silent through the genocide in Sudan.

By its own admission in the Report of the Panel on UN Peace Operation, the UN recognized that its peacekeeping efforts have failed. It undertook peacekeeping in only a third of the conflicts during the 1990s, and when the UN did do something, it failed or was not effective.

And yet, the UN raises its voice, loud and clear, in consistent and constant condemnation of Israel. In the last few decades, more than half of the UN resolutions passed were against Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. Israel scores as high as the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom on political rights. On civil liberties, Israel scores much higher than the dictatorship members of the UN.

Consider the dictatorships of Algeria, China, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, all of whom are members of the UN Commission on Human Rights. The dictatorship of Egypt is a member of all six UN committees concerned with human rights treaties. The dictatorships of Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan participate on the Governing Council of the International Labor Organization. The bloody dictatorship of Iran is on the five-member UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

Dictatorships who treat women as second class citizens or slaves like Egypt, Iran, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates are all members of the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

"So Americans' once gushy support for the U.N. during its adolescence is gone. By the 1970s we accepted at best that it had devolved into a neutral organization in its approach to the West, and by the 1980s sighed that it was now unabashedly hostile to freedom. But in our odyssey from encouragement, to skepticism, and then to hostility, we have now reached the final stage--of indifference. Americans do not get riled easily, so the U.N. will go out with a whimper rather than a bang. Indeed, millions have already shrugged, tuned out, and turned the channel on it." - Victor Davis Hanson. The United Nations is still investigating about 150 allegations of sexual abuse by its staff and soldiers in the Congo. The charges include accusations of pedophilia, rape and prostitution, some of which have been recorded on videotape.

"I am afraid there is clear evidence that acts of gross misconduct have taken place," said Secretary-General Kofi Annan. It has been years since the UN promised a full investigation and to hold those involved accountable, the fact is that the UN has never been open or honest and has been known to ignore evidence in the past – including accusations of rape and murder by "peacekeepers."

In a June 21, 2004 speech at the Conference on Confronting anti-Semitism: Education for Tolerance and Understanding sponsored by the United Nations Department of Information, human rights scholar and activist Anne Bayefsky made the following points:

- There is only one entire UN Division devoted to a single group of people: the United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights (created in 1977).

- The only UN day dedicated to a specific people is November 29, the annual UN Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.

- There is only one refugee agency dedicated to a single refugee situation: UNRWA (in operation since 1950).

- The General Assembly operates through six committees of the whole. One of them, the Fourth Committee, routinely devotes 30 percent of its time to the condemnation of Israel.

- The General Assembly emergency sessions... began in 1956, and since then six of the ten emergency sessions ever held, have been about Israel. The 10th such session began in 1997 and has been reconvened 13 times. One might think that a million dead in Rwanda or two million dead in Sudan might have warranted one General Assembly emergency session.

- The UN's primary human-rights body is the UN Human Rights Commission. 30% of the resolutions condemning specific states ever adopted over 40 years are directed at Israel.

and finally...

UNIFIL (United Nations Forces In Lebanon) announced yesterday that it will be compelled to [try] to shoot down Israeli reconnaissance jets flying over Lebanon as a violation of "the deal." The flights have revealed the extend to whichHezbollahh is re-arming in Southern Lebanon and from where the ballistics are coming."

Posted by The Watcher at Friday, October 27, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

I suppose we should blame the Chinese for starting it all. The Great Wall of China is considered one of the most amazing engineering feats of all time and one of the great wonders of the world. What government wouldn't want to emulate it, in fact, create their own wall, bigger and better?

But the world has changed and as the Berlin Wall showed us, in today's international community fences don't make good neighbors, they just make trouble. Humans, though, seem particularly resistant to the lessons of history. Building walls appears to be the big new government tool, a useless physical symbol of failed diplomacy. Israel has its Gaza and West Bank walls. Bush wants to build a 700-mile wall separating America from Mexico. Saudi Arabia is planning to build a fence along its 560-mile border with Iraq. What's the point? Did we learn nothing from the Berlin Wall? A wall won't keep Mexicans from getting into the United States and a fence won't keep terrorists from moving between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Israel's walls have become flashpoints for Arab fury. Walls and fences between nations simply serve as focal points for political rage.

Part of a $12 billion dollar security package that includes electronic sensors, security bases and other barriers, the Saudi-Iraq fence is estimated to cost $500 million and take 5 to 6 years to build. At least the Saudi government will be providing jobs to hundreds of its citizens, pointless though they may be. Still in the planning stages, the Saudis haven't decided whether to fence the entire length of their border with Iraq -- 560 miles of brutal, barren desert -- or just key crossing points. If they wall off the entire border, of course they'll have to man it with regular patrols or the terrorists will simply find a way to scale it or tunnel under it. On the other hand, if they only wall off key crossing points, the terrorists will simply cross somewhere else. Sounds like a lot of brouhaha for nothing.

Of course, I guess the oil-rich Saudi Princes have the money to burn, but it makes you wonder what the outcome would be if they put that money into foreign policy or aiding peace initiatives in Iraq or even social services in their own country? I'll bet with the money, planning, manpower and resources the Saudis are putting into their fence, they could become the leaders and saviors of the Middle East. Of course, that would take forward thinking, entail a bit of political risk, demand some political courage, and force the Saudi Princes to rattle their comfortable status quo. So much easier to build a fence to nowhere.

Posted by SqrlGuirl at Thursday, October 26, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

So, looks like my blog on British bigotry and my support of Muslim women wearing the veil if they choose hit a nerve in some western feminists. Well too bad! In their comments to my blog, these women say that they agree with Jack Straw and Tony Blair (both major champions of women's rights......NOT!) that Muslim women in Britain should not be allowed to wear veils when speaking with men or going about in public because it "just isn't right and we don't do that here". These feminists see the veil as the degradation and oppression of women and so they vociferously denounce the veil and any woman that wears it. They, like those British bigots, want to prevent Muslim women from wearing the veil. Hmmmmm, sounds like these women are no better than those oppressing Muslim men who they think are to blame. Why don't we have everyone bash those women who elect to wear the veil in western countries because of their religious beliefs. This hostility toward Muslim women who chose to be veiled (or, let's say we agree with those feminists who say they are "forced" to wear the veil) is a lot like punishing a rape victim for causing her own rape. These Muslim women wear the veil for their own reasons and we should not impose our view of the world on them.

Listen, the only way to change other people is to live a life of example. If others see your life is an example they want to follow, then they will. If they don't like it, then they won't. Now most of these veil-wearing women are immigrants or possibly only second generation Britons. Wait another two generations and I bet you do not see those great grand children wearing veils. It takes time to assimilate people, it does not happen overnight. Also you have to give them the chance to assimilate. By discriminating against them or not making them fully participating members of your society you are marginalizing them and all that does is isolate them and make them really mad. If you make them really mad, their male youth will begin to riot and perhaps join terrorist groups to get back at their oppressors. Give these people time and opportunities to see what a "superior" way of life you have and then let things take their natural course.

Beating the victim is no way to help them. You have to be understanding and you have to be tolerant of looks, dress, or behaviors that do not do any harm to others. But more important of all is that you have to respect the decisions they make, whether it is by their own will or because they are doing it for some other reason. Let me put this "veil thing" into a somewhat different perspective for these feminists. Say there is a woman who is in an abusive relationship and whose husband beats her. Are you going to be supportive of her or are you going to advocate she "get back at that bastard", even if you know that she will get beaten twice as hard or possibly even be murdered. You have to support her, you have to make as many opportunities as you can to bolster her self esteem so she can realize how damaging her relationship is, you have to help her become self sufficient, you have to let her know you support her.

So, you feminists..........go soak your head. Muslim women should have the right to cover their faces, just as you do if you want to do it. They have right to follow their religion as they see fit. And they have the right to live a life free of harassment from societies who not only don't understand their culture or motivations as well as from those who would force them to go against beliefs and rituals that are at the core of their being.

Posted by Straight Talk at Thursday, October 26, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

I have long wondered why in all the photos of rallies shown in the Middle East, there are no women visible? As the camera pans over the audience time after time, there are only men not even women in the back. Is it that the women are not allowed to participate in rallies or popular events? Is it that women do not have a place in expressing viewpoints and that only men can do so? Why exactly is this? Just consider the rallies held in Lebanon that were all over the news as examples, throngs of men, with no women present.

If you are a Middle Eastern Muslim woman, maybe you can tell me. If you are a Muslim man, stand aside and let the women comment here as this is their platform to express their views.

I acknowledge that women have a different place in Muslim cultures than they do in American and Western cultures, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, just different. I acknowledge that Islam expresses that women and men should not mingle together in religious places, but why is that and why the separation in public places as well? It seems to me that some of these rules are about men not being able to control themselves when in the proximity of women not about putting women in their place.

Here is an interesting article that speaks from a Muslim Cleric's point of view on women not wearing head scarves and that when their head is uncovered they should expect men to "hit" on them and that they deserve the attention and possible sexual overtures possibly including rape by their uncovered head. His comments have been widely criticized, and rightly so. But I just have to ask what is it that is so sexy or forbidden in Islam about someone's hair that to be considered dressing modestly, it must be covered?

Why is it that in Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive by law? What is that all about? Are the women such bad drivers that this had to be instituted or was this a male dominated society trying to keep a woman at home? Don't Saudi women chafe at that? Why is that considered an Islamic thing to do and yet in Iran women drive, they still wear head scarves, but they drive.

Why is it in Afghanistan that most women wear full bourkas versus the head scarf? I doubt they drive there either as it would be hard to do with a bourka on. Why is that?

If the Koran is a freeing influence for women and allows them to express their views, why is it only in the home environment or with other women that they can do that? They are clearly not out in public expressing their views or at rallies. And why is there such a disparity between the treatment of women in the name of Islam in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, and Afghanistan.

I am not encouraging rebellion, but rather am expressing common questions that people in the West have on the topic of Islam and women, head scarves, and dressing modestly, as well as being separated from men in public. I welcome your education of my ignorance. Please click comments below to tell me so that I will understand the reasons for these actions and customs.

Posted by The Watcher at Thursday, October 26, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

The American presence in Iraq has started to become a real problem for Iraqis who want to chart their own course. Prime Minister Maliki has started to state more frequently that the American forces are not keeping him advised of situations that happen until after the fact. Additionally he is stating that Iraqi will not bend to US demands.

The perception is widely held in Iraq that "...the Americans did not cooperate with them on the attack. This means as usual that the Americans have no respect for any authority when they want to do something," . So I say get out! Let the Iraqis take charge of their own country.

Without Americans there, there will be no one else to blame but the violent militia leaders themselves. New leaders will arise from the masses. This is a good thing; that is what democracy is all about. Even though we know that clearly this new democracy that will evolve will not be the American vision, but it will be an Iraqi vision. When there is ownership of a cause or pride in finding a solution together, a team is forged. With public consensus and people buying into this new team resolution, there will be long term adherence to the change.

America has made a mess of the situation in Iraq from their own arrogance and lack of cultural sensitivity. Now, instead of creating foolish maxims like we need to "Stay the Course" and "Not Cut and Run", we need to pull our military out, position it in the Kurd region where we are welcome, and fund the emerging Iraqi government with humanitarian aid and administrative support - when asked.

By moving the military out, we hand over the reigns of power to the Iraqi people. Although supposedly the Iraqis have been in control for some time, the reality is that they are not. The Americans are still guiding and controlling the government and military operations in Iraq. Americans are still doing and planning operations from their narrow perspectives and not necessarily from a perspective that matches that of the everyday Iraqi and even that of the Iraqi Prime Minister.

So, I say "pull out America. The Iraqis don't want us. Let them chart their own course. If they fail, they fail. If they succeed, they succeed, but it will be their own defeat or victory, not an American one!" It is time to pass the baton to the Iraqis and let them move ahead to find their own future.

Posted by The Watcher at Wednesday, October 25, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

You may not like it, and then again you may like it after all, but this blog is not pro anything. We post comments and write commentary looking from all sides. We are not pro-Bush or anti-Bush, we are not pro-Israel or anti-Israel. We are however anti-terrorist.

You may hate what you read here and then on the other hand you may agree that the points of view are intelligently expressed. Yes, I know that some of our commentary and posts are controversial, yes, some are in-your-face, some you may feel are naive or don't have the grasp of issues from your own perspective, and some you may feel are totally on target and wish more people would express ideas like them. Love or hate it, this blog is open to all points of view.

What we are on this blog is about open exchange, dialogue to understand diverse and different points of view. I encourage you to join into the exchange and read the comments that others have left to posts. I find it highly interesting to read also readers comments to our blog team's posts. The comments reflect real insight and highly valid points of view that are different from my own.

Now, a quick lesson on how first to read comments... just click the comment link under any post. If there are comments you will see something like this (6) Comments. Just click the link a new page will open that includes just the blog post with all the comments left in order with the newest at the bottom.

Second, to post a comment, it is just as easy. By the way, we do not filter or pre-review comments. Sometimes, it does take Blogger 30 minutes to an hour to refresh the server so you can see your own comments, but it will show up, there is no funny business on this end blocking anyone from posting a comment. Now to comment to a blog post, just click the link that says comment at the bottom of the screen, the blog post will open up with a link at the bottom that says post a comment or leave a comment, click that link. A pop-up box will open and allow you to enter in as much text as you want. Hit your return button twice to create a paragraph. Unfortunately you can not spell check, but you can decide if you want to post your comments anonomously or use a Blogger identity that you may already have.

We do want to solicit your opinions! We speak on a very wide variety of world interest topics on this blog and we have a very active readership and very active commenters. If you think that the blog team should speak on a specific topic, you can let me know by emailing me at watcher_245@yahoo.com. I am totally open to hearing what topics you want discussed.

Make sure to read the two blog posts below about Muslim women and head scarves, the comments are very heated on those and both have some extremely persuasive points of view from readers.

Posted by The Watcher at Tuesday, October 24, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

We've had two interesting and totally different comments stating completely opposite points of view on the blog post "Greedy Israelis Must Stop Over Stepping Their Bounds".

This blog is about different points of view and we wanted to highlight for you these two interesting perspectives. You can read the full commentary here. The comments have only been edited for readability.

"Right on! If the settlers refuse then the government should wash their hands of them however, if the two state solution is to be implemented then that means all of the settlements, not just the remote ones which are a drain on resources. However, (back to reality) when you consider the major settlement blocks and all the funding and infrastructure that has been allocated to them, I don't think Israel will ever hand them over. The settlements are a fundamental component to Israel's geopolitical interests to create facts on the ground and dictate permanent status agreements overwhelmingly in its favor."

"The level of ignorance reflected in this article is astounding and shocking. Obviously, whoever wrote it has no knowledge of the issues that drive the Arab/Israeli conflict and I was shocked to find such a thing here, associated with this book. Surely the giving up of Gaza has proven that nothing Israel does will ever bring about a peace with the Palestinians. Why does the world continue to disregard what the Palestinians say about such a possibility and continue to blame the Jews for the conflict? Just this past Friday, the PA Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar said, and I quote: "Israel is a "cancer" in the Middle East... and we will never establish relations with this 'cancer.' We will never recognize Israel - this is a final, non-negotiable decision." The Palestinians have no interest in peace with Israel. The goal is to pick off the land, inch by inch, and to pick off the Jews, life by life, until Israel is no more and there are no more Jews. Remember, if the Palestinians put down their weapons, there would be peace. If the Israelis put down their weapons, they would all die. And after that, well, remember that the Arabs view Israel as the "little Satan" and America as the "big Satan." It is foolhardy and dangerous, to place the blame for the conflict directly upon Israel."

Personally, I feel that it is time for the United Nations and the world to focus on the hard work necessary to bring peace and understanding to this corner of the Middle East.

Far too much time has passed since past peace talks. The situation between the Israelis and the Palestinians has not gotten better and eased with time. Instead, the situation has become a festering sore, a breeding ground for Arab contempt towards Israel, and an international call for terrorism worldwide.

First, the Palestinians must be held accountable for their acceptance of violence toward innocent Israeli civilians and second, the Israelis must be held accountable for honoring established treaty borders.

There is clearly no easy solution for these difficulties, but clearly there is hard work that must be done by all parties with the world community's participation and guidance. If only we had a strong United Nations to help bring these two warring factions to the negotiations table. As we do not, it is time for the European Union, NATO, France or even Sweden to try to draw these parties together into a negotiated compromise and then use International armed forces to police the solutions for the benefit of all.

Posted by The Watcher at Monday, October 23, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

So, I see Bush is having high level meetings in Washington DC to discuss the present situation in Iraq and what should be done. It is more like "What do we have to do to save our Republican butts in the upcoming elections" time than any serious administration repositioning of its stance on American foreign policy. Bush and his cronies are worried about losing power, and well they should be. The present administration's uncompromising (until now when it looks like his party is going to take a whuppin' in the elections) position on how we have to stand tough in Iraq and how Iraq is a bastion of democracy in the Middle East and how he "supports the troops", etc. is shown now to just be window dressing that disguises the policies of a man who is incapable of making any kind of rational decision and who feels that never re-evaluating a decision is a strength instead of a weakness. I bet 10 million dollars that it was not Bush's decision to have these meetings. My guess is that this is the work of his PR mastermind Karl Rove. By having this widely publicized meeting to re-evaluate the "war strategy" (which in fact was never a strategy in the first place) is simply a sham to try and show the American public that is overwhelmingly disgruntled about the US War in Iraq that Bush is sensitive to their needs.

This is an 11th hour scam whose outcome will have no lasting effect on what the US is doing in Iraq, it is simply to placate, until after the election, the voters who will soon be going to the polls to vote the bums out of office. I would not be surprised in the next two weeks for the Bush Administration to come out and propose a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq in hopes that those who see the war as a quagmire and doomed enterprise will keep voting for the party in power. But you know, that phased pull out will never happen. Not in the lifetime of this administration. There will always be something that will prevent it from being implemented. Some new crisis, some new finding, some new outbreak of violence that Americans will be told force our troops to remain on Iraqi soil.

Do not be fooled by this alleged "meeting". It is all smoke and mirrors. Anyone who works in the HR (Human Relations) department of any business or corporation will tell you that the best predictor of future performance is a person's past performance. Well, a tiger does not change its stripes. Bush has proven time and time again that he is not capable of doing anything other than making a decision based on some kind of internal gut decision (not necessarily a very well informed one) that is made on the basis of what his handlers tell him to do (not on the basis of his own research or objective interpretation of the data), and then sticking to his guns even in the face of data that shows his decision to be ill conceived and badly implemented. He has no capacity for seeing gray and acknowledging the ambiguities that are inherent in almost every decision that people have to make.

This "meeting" and re-evaluation of his Iraq strategy is a cheap and transparent election ploy. What is dangerous about it is that it is clear that it is the brain child of Machiavellian henchmen like Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld who got us into this situation in the first place. The generals who might be there will simply be puppets in the show, like the now disgraced Colin Powell was in his advocation of the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If the generals think they are going to have any influence in this process (because they are the ones who really know what is going on and are against having us there because they know this is not a winnable war or one with any realistic military objective) they are kidding themselves. They will simply be window dressing to give the appearance (as opposed to substance) of credibility of the meeting. They will be played like violins and come out looking like buffoons.

The meeting and anything that will come out of it is a cheap election side show and anyone who thinks differently is more foolish than Bush.

Posted by Straight Talk at Sunday, October 22, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

Islamic terrorism is not going away. Even if by some miracle, Iraq were transformed into a self-governing peaceful country tomorrow, Islamic terrorism would continue to batter the world. Iraq has merely been the training camp and proving ground for terrorists. In Iraq terrorists from all over the world have come together. It's given them a unique opportunity to share bomb recipes and terror strategies, form networks and make plans for the future. Iraq has been a tremendous boon to terrorists and they have made the most of the opportunity. But eventually America and her few remaining allies will leave Iraq or be forced out. When that happens, Europe will finally be forced to battle with the root evil of Islamic terrorism -- the disenfranchisement of immigrant Muslims at the hands of prejudiced Europeans.

Europe will finally have to accept its responsibility in creating this worldwide mess for it's not a problem in America. Few Islamic dissidents have come from America. Given our melting pot history, most Muslims have integrated into American society, following in the historical footsteps of many other ethnic and cultural groups. Assimilation and acceptance is something that America does well and fairly speedily. Sure there are issues and problems, but we're not telling Muslim women to remove their head scarves. In America we accept and respect the cultural and religious traditions of all people.

In Europe it's a different story. Thousands of Muslims have fled the wars and pestilence in Africa and the Middle East over the years, seeking relief and a new life in Europe. Their willingness to perform menial jobs at slave wages was considered a boon by white Europeans who welcomed their services at first. But they were never accepted into European culture and have faced increasing attack as their numbers have grown. Prejudice and bigotry are rampant. Most Muslims are segregated in dirty slums with few, if any services and little to no government assistance. Muslim children are segregated and forced to attend second-rate schools. Muslims shop in their own stores, stay in their own neighborhoods and are looked upon with hatred and suspicion by most Europeans. No wonder they feel disenfranchised. No wonder young Muslims see the terrorist message as one of empowerment and equality, as a way of obtaining rights they feel they have worked for and earned.

There is no stopping this. Muslims are rebelling against their treatment in Europe and will continue to rebel until they are accepted and begin to share in the same benefits as white Europeans. Before it is too late, Europe should study the history books, particularly the American Civil Rights Movement. Only this time, the downtrodden are better armed and more cunning. And, significantly, their leaders do not seek their victories in peaceful marches but in bloody body counts.

Posted by SqrlGuirl at Saturday, October 21, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

Secretarian violence is pushing the U.S. out of Iraq slowly but surely. Although Bush may not want to publicly admit this, I am sure that the pressure is on for him to start a withdrawal. With the advent of James Baker now working for an administrative exit policy and the real crush of midterm elections and the general dissatisfaction of the American people with the situation in Iraq, the President is really feeling pressure to get troops out earlier rather than later.

Several military commanders have stated publicly that they still do not have a handle on curbing the violence either in Baghdad or some of the outlying cities even with increased troop presence. It just does not appear that there will be an end in site to the violence with the American troops present. Although chaos might ensue with the departure of American troops, it will be Iraqi chaos not occupation driven chaos. The Iraqis will then have to take charge of the situation. Leaders will emerge, maybe not the leaders that the Americans dreamed of, but effective popular leaders.

Pulling out of Iraq may not necessarily be a bad thing for everyone, but we have a stubborn President and one with strong convictions about duty and honor. I am just simply not sure how flexible he can be and feel that he is not loosing face within the world community. Pull out from Iraq has many complications both on the local Iraqi stage and on the world stage.

Posted by The Watcher at Friday, October 20, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

Over the past couple of weeks, British white-men have once again showed their complete pigheaded ignorance and intolerance of others different from themselves; and revealed their inherent racism, which they do not even recognize they are perpetuating. Muslim women who, for religious reasons, wear a veil are now under attack in the UK to unveil themselves to British men who insist they see the women's faces when they talk to them. If they do not remove their veils and expose their faces to men then they lose their jobs and cannot speak to their elected representative. You know.......why not insist these uppity women remove their robes, so the men can see their breasts, just in case there is some kind of body language they might be missing and not able to interpret. In fact, why not insist these women just get naked so nothing is hidden from these men who don't seem to be able to understand in the slightest how wrong and racist they are. It makes me wonder what kind of profound stupidity inhabits the brain of white British males.

Let me propose a scenario. Would these men in interacting with a person, who had an extreme facial deformity or a missing eyeball and who wore a mask or eyepatch to cover up the disfigurement, insist the deformed person remove their mask or eyepatch when they spoke to them? Hmmmmm, I believe the answer would be, "NO!" Why? Well, I can think of two reasons. First the men might think it was OK for the person to wear the mask because the person's visage might be rather disgusting to look at. Or, if they were sensitive in the least, these men might decide that the other person might be embarrassed by their appearance and so to prevent them from suffering needless embarrassment and the staring that ensues from others, allow the other person to keep their face covered.

Let's look at another example. British males say that they just can't understand what these veiled women are saying because they can't see anything but their eyes. Let me ask, what will these poor men do if they ever become blind and how do blind people in Britain ever get by as they cannot see the faces of the people they are talking to. I tell you how they survive, they LISTEN!!!! This reasoning put forth that British men have to see a woman's face to understand what she is saying is complete rubbish!!! And everyone knows it!

So why is it that British males are now openly opposing veiled Muslim women. I'll tell you. First the people they are trying to control and embarrass are women, and as every good British man knows, women are inferior and should meekly do what they are told! Second the people they are assaulting with their intolerance and ignorance are of a different religion and culture than white British men. Third these women are defying the insistence of white British men in order to adhere to a religion that the British men do not understand and disdain. Fourth, these women are immigrants. Insisting that these women speak unveiled to men, when that is antithema to their culture and to their religious beliefs (whether you agree with these beliefs or not) is the ultimate in chauvinism and racism. No one if fooled by the pathetic reasons these men are putting forth to justify their bigotry!


Look, I don't seen any British men complaining that their brides, when they take their wedding vows wear veils that are not lifted until after the ceremony culminates in the words "You may now kiss the bride". Speaking while wearing a veil in the workplace or when speaking with a male legislator is not OK, but speaking while wearing a veil on a woman's wedding day is accepted and considered appropo. Sounds like British pigheaded bigotry to me.

Posted by Straight Talk at Thursday, October 19, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

We all already know that Venezuelan President Chavez clearly does not like the United States or George Bush, but now Venezuela has added their own name to the "axis of evil" list. Venezuela is issuing identity cards to foreign nationals from the Middle East, Cuba, and other countries that have historically bred terrorists setting a very dangerous precedent. You can read the full article here.

The identity card that I am speaking about is akin to the American Social Security card and so not something to be toyed with and does carry some weight especially when using the identity card to get other important documents like a passport or driver's license.

Chavez is dancing a dangerous dance by cozing up to Iran and Hamas. He needs to watch that he is not sucked into the whirlpool of Islamic Extremism and terrorist support.

The Venezuelan document connection is pretty severe as now Pakistanis are coming in from Mexico to the Southern US carrying these "fake" Venezuelan documents.

We just don't need another oil producing country sponsoring terrorism as we have in the Middle East and spreading the chaos into South and Central America.

Posted by The Watcher at Thursday, October 19, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

Tony Blair has even weighed in on this topic now. You can read the full article here. But the bottomline is that Mr. Blair says "take them off, you are keeping yourself from integrating into our society!"

As for me, I understand a veil or head scarf is a token of one's adherence to a religious viewpoint and shows obedience to a higher power. I am not set back or offended by women wearing these items. It does not prevent me from talking to them nor affect my viewpoint of them. In fact it does call attention to them but that is not necessarily a bad thing either. Do we ask nuns and Catholic priests to remove their habits and collars? Do we ask Jews to remove their yamakas? Why do people persist in demanding that devout Muslim women remove their veils and head scarves?

Personally I think that a full veil or bourka makes a woman look mysterious. Although in America we do not see many women dressed like this, in other cultures, this is the norm and one would look unusual on the street without them. Why are we so quick to point fingers at others who choose to dress or act differently. Is it fear, is it out of concern for the other, or is it about our own comfort; that everyone look and act like ourselves.

Any way you look at it, head scarves and full veils will not disappear, you can count on it. We need to stop focusing on what is under or behind the veil and instead focus on the person's performance or attitude not what they are wearing.

Posted by The Watcher at Wednesday, October 18, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

What a lousy way to celebrate your fifth anniversary. Forgotten, alone, no party -- well, unless you count the recent increased insurgency, violence and suicide bombings. Not the kind of party Afghanistan was promised, but I guess beggars can't be choosers.

In 2001 when the U.S.-led military coalition charged into Afghanistan and routed the Taliban from power in retaliation for harboring al-Qaida, it looked like a slam-dunk operation. We had the Taliban on the run, al-Qaida hiding in the hills, a fledgling democratic government trying out its wings, and an impoverished and downtrodden people experiencing the first glimmers of freedom. It seemed to happen in near record time, with one success after another. Of course it wasn't easy. Every step was hard fought; every victory, a small gain. But Afghanistan's leaders seemed willing to work toward a common goal. Those small gains were adding up to real change with a good chance of moving Afghanistan into the future as a part of the world community.

Of course, then Bush got distracted by his personal vendetta against Iraq and seems to have forgotten all about Afghanistan. He never committed the troops or resources to finish the job. It may be one of the most cataclysmic mistakes of his presidency. In Afghanistan, insurgency is on the rise. The Taliban are creeping back, ever more boldly, increasingly supported by tribal leaders in the southeast. Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida cohorts still camp in the mountains, spewing venom and rallying their followers. Suicide bombings are increasing dramatically and the fragile government of President Hamid Karzai is in peril. Afghans, already suspicious of foreigners, yearn for the peace and stability of five years ago. Despite its iron-fisted savagery, many Afghans see rule by the Taliban as preferable to unending war and chaos.

This is hardly the democratic society we promised Afghanistan, hardly the example of democratic freedom we held up to the world. If we fail to finish the job, to maintain order and quell unrest, to support the struggling government of President Karzai with troops and arms, we will do the people of Afghanistan the most heinous injustice. We will lose any remaining tatters of respect we have left in the world community. And the brave young men and women who fought for our country will have died in vain, as will have thousands of Afghans. All because we failed to get the job done. I wonder how can the President can sleep at night?

Posted by SqrlGuirl at Tuesday, October 17, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

Well, this beats all. Ted Turner founder of CNN seems to be on the side of terrorists and has become a political pundit. You can read the full article here.

Ted Turner argued that "you don't win people over by bombing them, you win them over by being friends with them," and soon recommended giving Muslim extremists what they want as a solution to terrorism. Turner, who in 2002 claimed that Israelis were guilty of "terrorism" against the Palestinians, on Friday's show advocated "being more even-handed in our dealing with the Palestinians and the Israelis," negotiating peace in the Middle East "so we can stop at some point furnishing military aid to Israel," and "pulling our military forces out of the Middle East." Turner labeled these moves as "things that they've asked of us" and "things that the Muslim extremists and a lot of other Muslims, too, would like to see us do."

Well, sorry terrorists can want and demand all they want, but we absolutely should not cave into terrorist's demands.

Since when does a terrorist force dictate US foreign policy? Since when does Ted Turner speak as a political pundit? I guess everyone can have a point of view, but we can not let ourselves be used as a propaganda vehicle by those whose real desire is to destroy our way of life, our society, and our families. We can not allow extremists ideals to become mainstream conversation!

Posted by The Watcher at Tuesday, October 17, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

We've all heard this saying before "united we stand, divided we fall". Here and now, this is a truth that can not be questioned, particularly on the topic of sanctions against North Korea and against Iran.

If the world community, through the United Nations, can not solidify a response using sanctions to stop the proliferation of nuclear research and nuclear weapons by the questionable governments of Iran and North Korea, then sanctions will fail and both parties will be like wild lions on a plain terrorizing the herds that they will prey upon madly. In this word picture, you and I, and our families are the herds that the lions will prey upon. We are the ones who will suffer from the madness that they two countries could unleash.

As the sanction process moves quickly along for North Korea, with China just saying this morning that they will check shipments coming and going from North Korea, back peddling on their statement earlier in the weekend that they would not inspect shipments, it appears that sanctions against the North Koreans will happen soon. On the Iranian front, the sanction process, although not as urgent to enact as the North Korean one, is still important, and yet seems stalemated. We must move the Iranian sanctions along the same process and the world community must stand strong in the light of potential oil blackmail from Iran to enact sanctions just the same. There must be no tolerance on this issue.

Both the North Korean and the Iran situation are serious problems for long term peace worldwide. Both situations need a strong spirit of participation and adherence to agreed upon sanctions to make headway in this serious threat to all countries worldwide.

We must stand united against the threat of nuclear violence and the unbridled rhetoric of violence and blackmail.

Posted by The Watcher at Monday, October 16, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

I never watched too many movies in my youth, so I have missed a lot of the classics people talk so much about. Out of curiosity I rented and watched The Manchurian Candidate the other night. You know the movie with Frank Sinatra, Angela Landsbury, and Janet Leigh where a group of US soldiers in the Korean War get captured and are brainwashed by communists and are sent back to the US to carry out deeds that almost result in the overthrow of the government. It was a great movie, but it really got me thinking. It had so many parallels to what is happening today in the great "Global War on Terror".

For those who have not seen the movie, it centers around the actions of a man who was brainwashed by evildoers to do whatever they wanted. The man was totally normal and carried on a normal life until he was shown a special visual clue. He would then go into a zombie-like state to receive instructions from his handlers and then would carry out the dastardly deed, remembering nothing of what had happened. As it turns out, at the instructions of his handlers, the man ends up killing everyone that ever gave him joy or that he ever cared about. He saw the destruction and deeply felt the grief caused from what he had done, but never knew or realized that he was, in fact, responsible for it. The most surprising part of the movie is when it is revealed that the man's key handler is his mother!

As she is giving him instructions for his last assassination (that of the president elect of the United States) for which she knows he son will be caught, yet which will put her and her puppet of a husband in the Presidency. She tells her son in anguished tones that "All I wanted was a perfect assassin! I had no idea they would chose you!!!!" Her tone then turns to rage and she says: "They did that to bind me close to them. They will PAY for this!!!! And pay for underestimating ME!!!!!" And then she sends her son off on his final mission of destruction of the innocents.

The Manchurian Candidate has a lot of lessons in it. Imams, warlords, and terrorist leaders who brainwash and exhort the young men who are the future of their countries to become destructive zombies in their war on terror are like the man's mother in the movie. It is obvious they have absolutely no respect or have no thought about the young men or the families of these youths that they use in their play for power, recognition, or respect. These evildoers also prevent their brainwashed predominantly male minions from even recognizing that what they are being told to do is destroying everything these young people love about their countries, their religion, and their families. It is a criminal act on the scale of catastrophic what these few determined, hateful, cowards, who pretend to be leaders, but who damn their people and followers to slow, painful, ignominious, and inglorious deaths, do. Like in the movie, these leaders should suffer the same consequences as the mother did. She was shot through the head by her son!! Unfortunately, the son finally realized what he had done to all the people and things that he loved and he put a bullet through his as well.

The Middle East and Afghanistan cannot afford to lose a generation of men who should be the builders of new peaceful and thriving societies. That is what the region is heading toward. And unless these young men realize the extent to which they are being manipulated and lied to and brainwashed, it will be a lost civilization harkening back to the Dark Ages. Only when they refuse to listen to the easy talk of those who are trying to coerce them to do destructive, dangerous actions that cause their own people further grief and destitution, and terminate these individuals with extreme prejudice will the Middle East and places like Afghanistan free themselves of the oppression (foreign and internal) that they have suffered under for so long.

Posted by Straight Talk at Sunday, October 15, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

What exactly is terrorism as we all fear it. It seems it is not any one political or religious doctrine. What it is, is when a group of people decide that they no longer value life, either theirs or anyone else's. Because these individuals suffer fierce spiritual, economic, or physical pain or hopelessness, they have no sympathy for anyone else's suffering. They become personally isolated from what it is to be human and then kid themselves into believing some political or religious agenda is the reason for their abominable behavior; and that it is only through this nihilistic behavior that their ultimate goals can be achieved.

Anyone who would terrorize, maim, kill, or torture someone has vacated the important place in their soul where human beings are connect to the rest of the human race or really to the world in general. It requires the ultimate in sociopathic behavior for someone to purposefully cause death and destruction, physically or mentally, to other people and to repeat the same or worse crimes over and over again, never connecting with the pain and suffering of their victims. This self absorbed behavior that shuts out everything in terms of the human condition is the hallmark of a seriously disturbed consciousness.

It is the intense addictive sexual-like feelings that these individuals get from seeing others suffer more than they do that keeps them repeating the same behaviors over and over again. Like serial killers, they need to have that next rush of beheading (or watching someone behead) someone, or the rush of raping a young girl (or watching someone do it), or chopping off the arm of someone begging them not to hurt them. What an incredible feeling of power and immortality that must create inside these creatures (because I dare not call them human). Terrorists are the lowest of the low, regardless of stripe. They are incredibly damaged pathetic psyches feeding off frustrated, self absorbed, sexual energy. There are other ways of getting what you want, without causing enormous damage to innocent people who have every right to live their life without fear of death and destruction or loss of life or loved ones.

Modern day terrorists should look to the lessons of India where Gandhi was able to expel the British through non-violent means. Look to the US Civil rights Movement and Martin Luther King. When you see the effectiveness of the peaceful demonstrations in the US during those years versus the violent ones, it was the peaceful demonstrations that made everyone realize that these people really had the power. You could not hate them. You had to respect them, and that is what all this terrorist action is about. We have hundreds of thousands oa disaffected young men around the world that feel they are getting no respect, so they use violence and intimidation to try and get it. But you know? It doesn't work that way.

Here is a message to all terrorists out there or to anyone that harbors them. YOU are the problem! Not the West, not the Great Satan, not your government, not your lack of jobs...... It is YOU. The world changes one person at a time and it is the example that people set that determines whether they will be respected and revered, not the damage or destruction they cause.

The watching of the suffering of the innocent and the feeling of superiority over their pathetic writhing is

Posted by Straight Talk at Saturday, October 14, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

It's just a small war by historical standards. A drop in the world's bucket of blood compared to some of America's other wars, but there's still plenty of time.

The Associated Press reported this week that "the Army has plans to keep the current level of soldiers in Iraq through 2010." While Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker attributed this to Army preparedness and not a prediction of how the war effort is going, it's clear that a significant troop withdrawal won't be happening in the near future. This puts a new perspective on last week's reports that troop tours are being extended again. But don't worry, our men and women in Iraq will probably be home by next spring or summer because the military has just lowered it's requirements for signing up. Good thing too. You have to be some kind of stupid to volunteer to go to Iraq to get blown up.

But I digress. The point is, we still have plenty of time to reach respectable casualty numbers to prevent Iraq from becoming just a minor blip in the history books. And we're well on our way. This week the Associated Press reported on a study published in the respected medical journal The Lancet that estimates the Iraqi death toll at nearly 655,000 since the start of the 3-year conflict. The estimate was derived by researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad from a door-to-door survey doctors conducted of 1,849 households in Iraq and extrapolated to a nationwide figure. Of course, the survey only estimates Iraqi deaths through July with the actual range being between 392,979 and 942,636 dead. This doesn't include the 2,756 U.S. military who have died, allied troop deaths or non-Iraqi civilian casualties (including journalists, construction workers, aid workers).

So the good news is we've already surpassed the half million soldiers and civilians who died during the Civil War, but we've still got a long way to go to catch up to the 2 to 4 million who died during the Korean War or the 7 million who died in the Vietnam War (figures are approximate, ref. www.Wikipedia.com). And we'll probably never reach the numbers achieved during WWI (15 million deaths) or that pinnacle of human tragedy, WWII with its grotesque death toll of 62 million soldiers and civilians. Unless, of course, Iran picks up the pace on its nuclear weapons program or some mad terrorist with a Napoleon complex gets hold of some weapons grade plutonium from one of Russia's well-protected nuclear graveyards.

President Bush must be pleased with the independent study's death estimates. After all, his team has only been reporting death tolls of 30,000 to 50,000, not nearly enough to designate this the historic battle against evil that Bush needs to make his mark in history. And, like I said, there's still plenty of time. Why with the cooperation of the American military, Iraqi policemen and the terrorists, I'll bet we can break 1 million by the end of the year. Who said the Iraqis aren't doing their part?

Posted by SqrlGuirl at Saturday, October 14, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

So, I hear now that the US was successful in initiating sanctions against North Korea. And on the news the other day, I saw the South Koreans embargoing shipments of rice to North Korea to feed its starving population. Let me point out how well sanctions did against Saddam Hussein. All they did was drive the Iraqi middle class into poverty and allow the wholesale disrepair of Iraqi infrastructure. What in the world does the US and UN think sanctions will do (or mean) to North Korea?

It is clear that the North Korean government does not care about its people. It let 2 million of them starve to death just a few years ago, so it does not seem that sanctions are going to do much to curb the situation there. If foreign governments shut down their bank accounts, all the Korean leaders will do is go into a cash economy with Russia and China who still show some support and provide them with oil.

Why are the Chinese and Russians so happy to continue to support Kim? Well, look at what happened to Iraq when the US kicked out the Hussein regime. Total chaos. Neither China nor Russia, or South Korea for that matter can stand that kind of situation on their borders. It is ultimately too destabilizing. For them it is better to tolerate control of a despotic Stalinist dictator than to have the country and its millions of inhabitants devolve into chaos. So what are the options, realistically speaking?

At this point, I do not believe that Kim is willing to listen to counsel of the Russians and the Chinese. The guy is not living in the real world and has never had to live in the real world. This is a real dilemma where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. The situation in North Korea should be a lesson for the entire world. When you let a despot get into control, you basically giving up any right to be able to deal rationally with that regime. Megalomaniacs rarely listen to common sense because that is not something that is inherent in their make-up.

So all this talk of sanctions, well go ahead and talk. They will have absolutely no effect. About all you can do is try to support the local population with humanitarian aid so that the common people feel that, even if their government has forsaken them, that the rest of the world has not. The only thing that works in terms of regime change is when the people living there actually change it themselves. We cannot do it for them, just like we could not do it for the Iraqis. I say support the people, and they will see who their friends are and what they have to do to make their lives livable once again. Do not impose the kind of disastrous sanctions that were imposed on Iraq. No one in power was affected, only the common person on the street and their children were. If you take reduce the money flowing to the leaders, they just bleed it from their people and the resources they would have spent on them. So basically sanctions are a death knell for the real North Koreans living in the country side, in the towns, and cities. It is a genocidic solution that does nothing to change the government or its frame of mind.

Stop the sanctions!!!!! Support the common person and let them know we care.

Posted by Straight Talk at Friday, October 13, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

Well, I for one am not holding my breath on the United Nations being able to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue any better than the way they have tried to deal with the Iranian uranium enrichment issue. In fact, have you heard of any resolutions or sanctions against Iran after all the top level discussions between world powers, NO. Do you actually think that anything will happen with the North Korean issue?

In fact I think that Kim Jong Il the leader or North Korea is basking in the sudden world attention. Remember the adage with children "negative attention is better than no attention". Now, I am not saying that North Korea is to be treated as a child, but it is clear that Kim Jong thirsts for a world stage from past history and boy is he getting it this time.

China and Russia have put the kabash on the United Nations or any other nation, namely the US, from seeking a military invasion to correct the problem, but just as equally world powers are diluting the effectiveness of any sanctions just as France and others have with the sanction talk for Iran.

I think the best resolution at this point is to tie up Iran and North Korea with a non-proliferation treaty instead of trying to stop the ball that they have set rolling. I do not personally believe, at this time, that either country can be stopped from progressing with their nuclear drive. In fact, as the United Nations wrestles with wording on sanctions that both of these countries will simply ignore, their drive for additional nuclear research continues.

Well, so sorry to be so cynical on this topic, but I am simply looking at the reality. The United Nations has done nothing with Iran, and now the United Nations will do nothing with North Korea. If you are buying stock, now is a good time to buy airline stock (I say this tongue in cheek) as all kinds of diplomats will be flying around in the near future to try to find a solution that in the end will never be enacted or and will never be obeyed.

Posted by The Watcher at Friday, October 13, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

Now this was an interesting comment to the post "Greedy Israelis Must Stop Overstepping Their Boundaries!". The comments were clearly posted by a person who lives in Palestine. You can read the full thread here.

"Right on! If the settlers refuse then the government should wash their hands of them however, if the two state solution is to be implemented then that means all of the settlements, not just the remote ones which are a drain on resources. However, (back to reality) when you consider the major settlement blocks and all the funding and infrastructure that has been allocated to them, I don't think Israel will ever hand them over. The settlements are a fundamental component to Israel's geopolitical interests to create facts on the ground and dictate permanent status agreements overwhelmingly in its favor. Peace from the Bethlehem Ghetto."

If you have not read the post, you may want to click in and weigh in with your comments on the topic of Israeli settlements on contested land.

The right or lack of right, depending on your viewpoint, to settle on land thereby expanding Israel's borders into Palestinian territory is a very hot topic.

The viewpoints are very polarized and appears to have no middle ground. But as one on the outside looking in, it does seem that Israel should withdraw from these territories in an effort to move the peace process along and to stop the violence toward their civilian population.

Taking and settling on disputed land is like pouring salt in a wound. It is simply not necessary and does nothing but inflame already tense situations in the region. Some Israelis feel that it is their right to settle on this disputed land, others in the Middle East perceive these actions as aggressive and compounding the difficult situation that the Palestinians already face.

Violence is not the solution for either side, although some feel that it is or should be. Israel needs to quench its thirst for expansion and move to empower the Palestinian people to set up a parallel state with the assistance of the world community and consider any Israelis living on Palestinian ground now as immigrants to Palestine and not squatters on soon-to-be Israeli soil.

Posted by The Watcher at Thursday, October 12, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

Well it was nice while it lasted. It's been 17 years since the Berlin Wall was toppled on November 9, 1989, and the Cold War ended. I have a sliver of that wall as a memento of those tense, uncertain times when we worried that Russia might drop the bomb on us at any moment and turn America into a great, smoldering crater. I remember touring the bomb shelter our neighbors dug deep in their backyard. I remember crouching under my desk at school during nuclear bomb drills, as if that would save us. When my grandfather died a few years back, we found a huge cache of bottled water, toilet paper, and spoiling canned goods hidden in the back of a closet under the basement stairs -- a reminder of the fear that gripped America during those years.

I've always been glad my children didn't grow up with the threat of nuclear war. The devastation, death and destruction wrought by conventional weapons has been horrific enough; but at least total annihilation of the human race in a nuclear holocaust has not been one of our fears. Until now.

With North Korea's testing of a nuclear weapon, the Cold War is ramping up again. In Asia, the runners are in the starting block, and North Korea just fired the starter's pistol. China and India already have nuclear capability. Fear of Kim Jong II's maniacal plans is likely to push Japan and South Korea into the nuclear race. And the Middle East is poised to follow suit. Iran will not abandon it's nuclear push; and once achieved, fear will drive Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, perhaps even Syria to follow suit.

This time, though, America will be powerless to stop it. Our currency with North Korea and Iran is zero. We have nothing to give or take away that can exact the extreme pressure necessary to deter them from seeking the Holy Grail of world power. This time others will have to carry the burden. Only China and Russia have the clout to dissuade North Korea and Iran from their nuclear goals and change the course of world history. The question is, will they have the courage to rise above their own interests and save the world?

Posted by SqrlGuirl at Thursday, October 12, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

This is what I think Kim Jong Il is saying, "Just how much will you pay me to stop my nuclear program?" The world community has taught foreign leaders to expect a negotiated settlement on hot topics such as these. Just think about the aid package that was so "sweet" that was offered to Iran to stop uranium enrichment.

What kind of aid package do you think that Kim Jong has in mind? I am sure that it will not be a cheap one. Although, right now Jong is rattling his saber and threatening to declare war on the US, much to the consternation of Japan where there are numerous US military bases, it will eventually get to a point where the world is exhausted by this posturing as well as Jong and his people, and then the negotiations will start.

Don't fool yourself into believing that Jong will not try to cut a "sweet" deal for himself and his country that all world citizens will be footing the bill for through the United Nations under the guise of nuclear inspection and humanitarian aid. You just wait and see!

Posted by The Watcher at Wednesday, October 11, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

A major roadblock to stability in the Middle East is the continued threat of border expansion by Israel into neighboring areas that are part of Palestinian territory. The actions of an irresponsible few, rabid, ultra-Zionist Jews must be stopped by the Israeli government before it becomes even harder to get the peace process back in place. Sharon was right, Israel needs to put defensible boundaries around itself; and disconnected speck-like settlements of Jews, scattered around Palestinian territory, need to be: (1) abandoned immediately with no hesitation or (2) the Jews living there need to be told in no uncertain terms that if they decide to remain where the are, they do so at their own peril. Just as there are Arabs inside Israel, these Jews would become Jews who are part of the new Palestine and they would be under the rule of the Palestinian government and all that would entail. If the settlers refuse to budge, Israel should officially wash their hands of them and let them suffer the consequences of their irresponsible behavior.

These Jewish settlers and the scattershot settlements they inhabit are one of the main stumbling blocks to peace in the Middle East. And, I have to say that, frankly, the waxing and waning of the Israeli government's resolve and its present inaction in terms of dismantling remaining settlements does not instill confidence in the Palestinian people or in the broader international community that Israel will actually keep its promises. Israel's pattern of waffling; where they first threaten to eliminate settlements, and in some cases actually deport people back to Israel, and then allow settlers to return and rebuild or allow new construction in other settlements is bad policy that, to the world, makes Israelis look both arrogant and stupid.

I am sure that this image is not what Israeli settlers THINK is the image they are projecting. I am sure the settlers think that Jews everywhere are admiring them and egging them on and applauding the efforts of a "true people" holding on to their "god-given legacy". Well, you know what? They are wrong! Jews around the world are not thinking what great heroes the settlers are or admiring their tenacity and gumption. They are thinking "What are these idiots doing!!?" "These jerks are making Jews look bad!" "These idiots are preventing any possible resolution of political strife in our homeland" The Israeli government and Jews living in the settlement areas need to heed what these Jewish brothers are saying.

So, what advantage is it for Israel to have all these settlements anyway? In short, there is none. Having them, just so a few radicals can make a point or so they can be a thorn in the side of their Arab/Palestinian neighbors/enemies, is childish and shortsighted. There is no way Israel security forces can ever adequately defend anastomosing and precipitously peninsular boundaries. Israel needs to pull its people back to reasonable well defined, defensible boundaries that do not allow the possibility for a quick foreign military action that could cut off important parts of their country from the rest.

Israel needs to get back to the agreed upon peace plan and not let peripheral issues deter it from achieving its primary goal of stability in the region. Stability can only come with a concentrated population inside a well defined and defensible perimeter. Israeli settlements scattered in Gaza and the West Bank are cancers on the land and in the political process. The Israeli government has to step up to the plate and show leadership and get the peace process back on track. It MUST let its misbehaving and trouble-making settlers know that it will not tolerate their efforts to derail peace in the region any longer, and it must give them the choice to come back home or stay where they are and suffer the consequences.

Posted by Straight Talk at Tuesday, October 10, 2006 | Permalink | Comments | links to this post

The Iranian people are great, warm, friendly, interesting, and have a wonderful heritage. Why is it however that they have allowed a government to take control of their lives that embraces a culture of oppression specifically targeting women?

Why is it that although 63% of Iranian college students are women, yet women do not hold important offices in the government? Why are there fewer opportunities for Iranian women in the workforce in general? Why is it that Iranian women are not considered suitable as judges? Why are Iranian women not business managers in charge of men in the work force? Why do secret culture police harass women who do not have on a head scarf or who are walking with male relatives or who are unescorted? Why are women considered one half of the value of a man in the Iranian courts of law? Why are the mothers of grown women called by the secret culture police to check if they are allowed to be out over night in another city even when accompanied by their children?

Why are Iranian women not outraged over this oppression. Have they been cowed into submission by terrorism by their own government? Are they afraid to speak out? Are they afraid of retribution to their families?

Why can a man divorce a woman by just simply saying "I divorce you" and get full custody of the children? Why does an Iranian woman have no child custody rights after a divorce? Why should the children suffer by not being able to stay and visit their mother when they actually may receive better care with their mother than with their father in some cases?

I simply do not understand these issues and I truly want to. I have just finished reading the book Iran Awakening A Memoir of Revolution and Hope by Shirin Ebadi with Azedeh Moaveni. Shirin Ebadi is a Nobel Peace Prize winner for championing human rights causes in Iran. This book shines a harsh spotlight on the situation for women in Iran living under the Shariah or Muslim law.

So again I ask, why are the Iranian people accepting this way of life? Why are educated women accepting an existence that does not match their capabilities and why are the Iranian men allowing a government to oppress their loved ones? Where are the men championing causes for women?

What do you think the answer is? Click the comment link below and tell me what you think about the situation and what is needed for change.

Posted by The Watcher at Tuesday, October 10, 2006 | Permalink | Comments