Hi there, !
Today Wed 05/14/2008 Tue 05/13/2008 Mon 05/12/2008 Sun 05/11/2008 Sat 05/10/2008 Fri 05/09/2008 Thu 05/08/2008 Archives
Rantburg
533799 articles and 1862261 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 59 articles and 206 comments as of 22:56.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    WoT Background    Non-WoT    Local News       
Army sides with Nasrallah against Leb govt
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 4: Opinion
4 00:00 Zhang Fei [8] 
18 00:00 Zhang Fei [5] 
4 00:00 trailing wife [5] 
0 [6] 
0 [4] 
5 00:00 Beavis [2] 
2 00:00 JosephMendiola [6] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
12 00:00 Abdominal Snowman [8]
5 00:00 Steve White [9]
14 00:00 JosephMendiola [10]
5 00:00 trailing wife [5]
3 00:00 lotp [5]
0 [5]
1 00:00 anymouse [4]
1 00:00 gorb [5]
0 [6]
0 [5]
0 [9]
0 [10]
0 [7]
0 [9]
5 00:00 SD FSO [5]
0 [2]
2 00:00 phil_b [4]
0 [9]
0 [8]
0 [9]
0 [5]
5 00:00 Woody [10]
Page 2: WoT Background
2 00:00 john frum [10]
0 [4]
0 [3]
5 00:00 RWV [9]
9 00:00 anymouse [3]
0 [1]
0 [4]
3 00:00 gorb [3]
0 [4]
8 00:00 g(r)omgoru [2]
0 [3]
Page 3: Non-WoT
10 00:00 trailing wife [10]
1 00:00 Thaimble Scourge of the Pixies4707 [4]
22 00:00 Pappy [6]
10 00:00 G. S. Patton [3]
8 00:00 Nimble Spemble [6]
5 00:00 JosephMendiola [6]
7 00:00 regular joe [3]
2 00:00 Nimble Spemble [4]
0 [8]
3 00:00 JosephMendiola [7]
0 [7]
0 [7]
0 [5]
Page 5: Russia-Former Soviet Union
2 00:00 USN,Ret. (from home) [6]
6 00:00 Jim K [1]
6 00:00 twobyfour [5]
4 00:00 JosephMendiola [3]
0 [7]
7 00:00 g(r)omgoru [2]
Home Front: Politix
A Defeated Hillary’s Best Bet
Michael Weiss, Pajamas Media

She knows that if Obama wins this year, her hopes of ever becoming president will vanish. . . . Her best bet would be to see Obama lose, thus vindicating her unheeded plaint that he was general election poison, and then run against the incumbent McCain in 2012, vowing to “take back the White House” after twelve years of Republican misrule.

How might she facilitate this strategy? She can’t endorse McCain and campaign openly against Obama without forfeiting her right to call herself a Democrat. Also, it is by no means evident that the butterfly kisses the GOP is sending in her direction, not to say the loyalty of her dejected supporters, are enough to sustain a permanent party switch. However, what she can do is stay in the picture long enough as an off-color liberal commentator, the beaten but unbowed grand dame, ever with the ready opinion on every foible of the Obama campaign. She can present herself to voters as the missed opportunity, the jilted ex-lover for whom they all still secretly pine.
Sorta like McCain did these last eight years ...
The conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, who did her such a favor with “Operation Chaos” in Indiana, can invite her on the air to expatiate at length about what her erstwhile rival is doing wrong and why he still fails to “connect” with her old core constituency — those diligent Caucasians without college degrees, especially the ones who think Obama might be Muslim and now tend toward McCain.

Yes, this strategy will make the Tammany bosses angry and perhaps even “bitter,” but if it works or helps unhorse the golden boy with the nutty preacher and oily ties to the Chicago demimonde, what choice will they have in four years? Adlai Stevenson didn’t get them anywhere, maybe it’s time to revisit Richard Nixon in a pantsuit After all, the only thing that exceeds the Clintonian immunity to defeat is the Democratic willingness to forgive all Clintonian sins for the sake of victory.
Posted by: Mike || 05/11/2008 13:20 || Comments || Link || [8 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Her best bet would be to see Obama lose, thus vindicating her unheeded plaint that he was general election poison, and then run against the incumbent McCain in 2012, vowing to “take back the White House” after twelve years of Republican misrule.

She might also consider running again for Senator of NY or governor of NY. She might also consider going into the cookie business. She could also write a tell all book if she could tell the truth--a best seller, I'm sure.

There is one possible fly in her ointment jar regarding John McCain. He might just turn out to be a very good President and get something done in Washington that actually needs to be done.
Posted by: JohnQC || 05/11/2008 18:16 Comments || Top||

#2  Hillary's best bet if she doesn't win is to try and cheat the devil out of her soul by substituting the souls of others. It might at least get her a few years extension on her contract.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 05/11/2008 21:05 Comments || Top||

#3  JQC: There is one possible fly in her ointment jar regarding John McCain. He might just turn out to be a very good President and get something done in Washington that actually needs to be done.

I think anyone who wins in November is a one-term president. The tsunami of bank and other corporate failures that are about to descend upon us - because of the bursting of the credit bubble - will see a moribund economy for the next four or five years, combined with collapsing real estate values. If Obama wins, the next president will be a Republican. If McCain wins, the next president will be a Democrat. Basically, the next president gets to be a one-term Herbert Hoover, whose failure will set in stone opposition party majorities for the next several decades. Obama's radical ideology compared with his socialist ideas - during a time of major economic trouble - will so wreck the economy that American voters will be begging for a Republican alternative long before his term is over. We need Obama to put to bed the destructive big-government legacy of Roosevelt's New Deal.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 05/11/2008 21:35 Comments || Top||

#4  Obama's radical ideology compared combined with his socialist ideas
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 05/11/2008 21:36 Comments || Top||


Obama unstained by Chicago Way
Posted by: ryuge || 05/11/2008 09:39 || Comments || Link || [5 views] Top|| File under:

#1  As usual, we just don't get it. From the comments at the link:
What you old cynical types fail to recognize is what Obama can accomplish just as a symbol for a America. His mere presence in the Oval office would significantly neutralize much of the hate for us around the world.
I don't think the poster was smn...
Posted by: Bobby || 05/11/2008 14:12 Comments || Top||

#2  I know the poster was definitely an idiot, Bobby....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 05/11/2008 22:40 Comments || Top||

#3  I'm gonna haveta disagree. John Kass is a straight dude - the article deals with how the Chicago taint hasn't besmirched the Magic Negro because the press is in the tank for O'Bama. If you see Kass's byline - read it

Just my 2 cents
Posted by: Frank G || 05/11/2008 23:30 Comments || Top||

#4  That was how I read it, too, Frank.
Posted by: trailing wife || 05/11/2008 23:54 Comments || Top||


Tim Blair: Democrats plan, God laughs
In February, ex-prez and possible future first man Bill Clinton told an audience in Washington: "All my life I have wanted to vote for a woman for president. All my life I have wanted to vote for an African-American for president. I wonder why God gave us this dilemma."

It isn't a dilemma if you follow King's dream and place character above colour (and gender), allowing one to judge Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as mere candidates instead of as Super Woman and Hero Black Guy. You'd vote for neither of them.

To presume on behalf of the Almighty, the reason He gave us Clinton v Obama may have been to expose the madness of identity politics.

If Clinton and Obama were both male and white, they'd be judged unremarkable, inexperienced and blunder-prone. Identity politics - a leftist speciality by which a candidate is elevated via racial or gender characteristics - have launched this pair to a level they'd otherwise not have reached.

It's interesting that identity politics don't play so well for conservative black politicians and others on the Right, who are frequently described by leftists as subservient-to-whitey "Uncle Toms" for believing in the primacy of market forces and such.

Any number of progressive, leftist, avowedly non-racist websites use that term when attacking the likes of US Supreme Court judge Clarence Thomas, economist and columnist Thomas Sowell and even Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson, whose Uncle Tommish qualities are slightly diminished by him being Australian, never having lived in a cabin and never having been being sold into 19th century American slavery.

Don't even get them started on Condoleezza Rice, who, being black AND female, ought to be the pin-up girl for every racially-sensitive feminist. Instead she's despised. Oddly, they'd probably hate her less if she was white.

The Left's notion that skin colour (at least in the case of leftists) is an indicator of goodness is purely racist. And inaccurate; just look at black leftist Robert Mugabe. To paraphrase Barack Obama: Can we destroy Zimbabwe? Yes we can!

Meanwhile the Democrats are destroying themselves via their endless contest of race and gender, which also features - thanks to both candidates' attempts to prove that they are down with the workers - elements of class arrogance.

All we need for this to become the biggest leftist brawl of all time is for an environmentalist to wade into it.

Al Gore has been silent of late, but was recently heard on US radio insanely claiming that the Burmese cyclone was linked to global warming.

He's back in play! Let's hope Obama selects Gaia's boyfriend as his vice-presidential running mate - or (dream of dreams) Al decides to make a last-minute run himself. It'll be a three-way left-fest to the death.
Posted by: Mike || 05/11/2008 09:08 || Comments || Link || [4 views] Top|| File under:


Home Front: WoT
On Illegal Combatants and Torture: A Voice of Sanity
Total HT to Powerline:
No issue has generated more misguided commentary than that of the treatment of terrorist detainees. I think the confusion stems, in part, from the false assumption that terrorist detainees, like Americans who are suspected of a crime and are in the custody of law enforcement authorities, have a right to remain silent. They have no such right. On the contrary, security agencies have the right and duty to try to extract information from them--information that in many cases, will save Americans' lives.

Yesterday, House subcommittee chairman Jerrold Nadler held a hearing on "executive branch war powers," which was the usual festival of Bush-bashing, centered on legal opinions on detainee treatment that have been given by the Department of Justice. What was notable about the hearing was the opening statement by ranking Republican Trent Franks of Arizona. Franks delivered as sensible (and legally accurate) discussion as I've seen; here it is, in its entirety:
FRANKS: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the subject of detainee treatment was the subject of over 60 hearings, markups and briefings during the last Congress in the House Armed Services Committee alone, of which I am a member.

The subject of this hearing is a memorandum that has long since been withdrawn. That memorandum regarded an interrogation program on which Speaker Pelosi was fully briefed in 2002. And at that briefing, no objections were made by Speaker Pelosi or anyone else.

According to the Washington Post, in September 2002, four members of the Congress met for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody.

For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk. Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was water boarding. On that day, no objections were raised.

Mr. Chairman, let me be clear as I have done so in the past by saying that torture is already, and should be, illegal. I am against torture. Torture is banned by various provisions of the law, including the 2005 Senate Amendment prohibiting the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of anyone in U.S. custody.

But what of severe interrogations? Mr. Chairman, were we not to engage in severe interrogations which could save thousands or even millions of lives, we would have to ask ourselves if we were facilitating the maiming and torture of innocent Americans by letting terrorist suspects conceal their evil plans.

Severe interrogations are rarely used. CIA Director Michael Hayden has confirmed that despite the incessant hysteria by a few, the water boarding technique, for example, has only been used on three high-level captured terrorists, the very worst of the worst of our terrorist enemies.

Director Hayden suspended the practice of water boarding by CIA agents in 2006. Before the suspension, he confirmed that his agency water boarded 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaida and Abdullah Hem Nashiri (ph), and each for approximately one minute.

But who are these people, Mr. Chairman? When the terrorist Zubaida, a logistics chief of Al Qaida, was captured, he and two other men were caught building a bomb. A soldering gun that was used to make the bomb was still hot on the table, along with the building plans for a school.

John Kiriaku, a former CIA official involved Zubaida's interrogation, said during a recent interview, quote, "These guys hate us more than they love life. And so you're not going to convince them that because you're a nice guy and they can trust you, and that they have rapport with you that they're going to confess and give you their operations," he said.

The interrogation of Zubaida was a great success, and that it led to the discovery of information that led to the capture of terrorists, thwarted terrorist plans and saved innocent American lives.

When a former colleague of Mr. Kiriaku asked Zubaida what he would do if he was released, he responded, quote, "I would kill every American and Jew I could get my hands on," close quote.

The results of a total of three minutes of severe interrogations of three of the worst of the worst terrorists were of immeasurable benefit to the American people. CIA Director Hayden said that Mohammed and Zubaida provided roughly 25 percent of the information that the CIA had on Al Qaida from all human sources. Now we just need to kind of back up and thought about that. A full 25 percent of the human intelligence we've received on Al Qaida from just three minutes worth of a rarely used interrogation tactic.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to repeat again, as I previously said, torture is banned under federal law that prohibits the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of anyone in U.S. custody. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has concluded that, quote, "The types of acts that fall within cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment contained in the McCain Amendment may change over time and may not always be clear. Courts have recognized that circumstances often determine whether conduct, quote, 'shocks the conscience and violates a person's due process rights,' unquote."

Even ultra-liberal Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz agrees, as he wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal. Quote, "Attorney General Mukasey is absolutely correct that the issue of water boarding cannot be decided in the abstract. A court must examine the nature of the governmental interest at stake and then decide on a case by case basis. In several cases involving actions at least as severe as water boarding, the courts have found no violations of due process."

Much will be made today of a memorandum regarding severe interrogations authored by John Yoo, a former lawyer at the Office of Legal Counsel. But as Mr. Yoo himself said during a recent interview, quote, "I didn't want the opinion to be vague so that the people who actually have to carry out these things don't have a clear line, because I think that that would be very damaging and unfair to the people who are actually asked to do these things," close quote.

These things, Mr. Chairman, are efforts to save thousands of innocent American lives. Now I expect Mr. Yoo's name will be mentioned many times today, but the name of Senator Charles Schumer probably not so many times.

But let us remind ourselves what Senator Schumer of New York said at an extended Judiciary Committee hearing on terror policy on June 8, 2004. And I wonder if they have the -- can we start again?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHUMER: We ought to be reasonable about this. I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake.

Take the hypothetical, if we knew that there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city, and we believed that some kind of torture, fairly severe, maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is most Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say do what you have to do.

So it's easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used. But when you're in the foxhole, it's a very different deal. And I respect, I think we all respect the fact that the president's in the foxhole every day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FRANKS: Mr. Chairman, I wish so much that this was all just an academic discussion. But unfortunately, we now live in a post-9/11 world with an enemy whose leader, Osama bin-Laden, has said, quote, "It is our duty to gain nuclear weapons."

Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid that one such tragedy will transform this debate in the worst kind of way. Two airplanes hitting two buildings took 3,000 lives and cost this nation $2 trillion.

If an atomic blast or some other weapon of mass destruction should ever be unleashed on this nation, it would change our concept of freedom forever. And I just hope that we can transcend the partisanship and maintain our focus on that because there's still hours on the table left when we can prevent such a tragedy, I believe, if we realize that there are ways that we can combine human decency and a vigilant foreign policy in an interrogation technique process to protect this country and the concept of freedom for future generations.
Posted by: Frank G || 05/11/2008 00:00 || Comments || Link || [2 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Amen.
Posted by: wxjames || 05/11/2008 0:40 Comments || Top||

#2  Of course we are assuming that the honorable members of congress (and Speaker Pelosi) want America to win - and want to save American lives.

I have my doubts about that. Particularly if they feel they can gain an ounce of political power by not doing so.
Posted by: CrazyFool || 05/11/2008 2:13 Comments || Top||

#3  Huh? Delta Camp methods have been both recreated by those affected, and admitted by the DoD. You can view an actual stream of the story - out of context - of 3 UK Muslims who were caught in Afghanistan in Oct. 2001, when Taliban/al-Qaeda was surrounded by US and Northern Alliance troops. See "The Road to Guantanamo" at this UK site:
http://freedocumentaries.org/

Crude interrogation prep was practised at "X-Ray Camp" at Gitmo, but developed techniques were utilized at Delta. Ops admitted to using this SOP (later revised):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/495141/Camp-Delta-Standard-Operating-Procedures

I have always advocated the summary execution of 100% of the foreign Muslims who were captured in Afghanistan. They all supported Taliban/al-Qaeda, and none deserved to live.
Posted by: McZoid || 05/11/2008 3:20 Comments || Top||

#4  Outrage and denunciation [to include multi-week front page coverage by the NYT] of this pattern of American torture seems rather muted. Can't blame Bush?
Posted by: Procopius2k || 05/11/2008 12:01 Comments || Top||

#5  Man when I was Pike we just watered down ketchup poured it the heads of the pledges while chanting 'menstrual stew, menstrual stew'.
Posted by: Beavis || 05/11/2008 12:10 Comments || Top||


Israel-Palestine-Jordan
The Myth Of Occupied Gaza
Hamas claims that former president Jimmy Carter's recent meeting with its leader, Khaled Meshal, marks its recognition as a "national liberation movement" -- even though Hamas rockets fired from the Gaza Strip, which Hamas rules as an elected "government," continue to rain down on Israel's civilian population. While Hamas is clearly trying to bolster its legitimacy, the conflict along Israel's southern border has a broader legal dimension -- the question of whether, as a matter of international law, Israel "occupies" Gaza. The answer is pivotal: It governs the legal rights of Israel and Gaza's population and may well set a legal precedent for wars between sovereign states and non-state entities, including terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda.

Israel's critics argue that Gaza remains "occupied" territory, even though Israeli forces were unilaterally withdrawn from the area in August 2005. (Hamas won a majority in the Gazan assembly in 2006 and seized control militarily in 2007.) If this is so, Jerusalem is responsible for the health and welfare of Gazans and is arguably limited in any type of military force it uses in response to continuing Hamas attacks. Moreover, even Israel's nonmilitary responses to Hamas-led terrorist activities -- severely limiting the flow of food, fuel and other commodities into Gaza -- would violate its obligations as an occupying power.

Israel, however, is not an occupying power, judging by traditional international legal tests. Although such tests have been articulated in various ways over time, they all boil down to this question: Does a state exercise effective governmental authority -- if only on a de facto basis -- over the territory? As early as 1899, the Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land stated that "[t]erritory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation applies only to the territory where such authority is established, and in a position to assert itself."

The Hague Convention is a founding document of the modern law of armed conflict, and its definition of occupied territory was woven into the 1949 Geneva Conventions. There, the relevant provision provides that "[i]n the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations," although certain protections for the populations continue "to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory." That is the key -- exercising the functions of government. This proposition was recognized in a seminal Nuremberg prosecution, the Trial of William List and Others.

It is because an occupying power exercises effective control over a territory that international law substantially restricts the measures, military or economic, it can bring to bear upon this territory, well beyond the limits that would be applicable before occupation, whether in wartime or peacetime.

The Israeli military does not control Gaza; nor does Israel exercise any government functions there. Claims that Israel continues to occupy Gaza suggest that a power having once occupied a territory must continue to behave toward the local population as an occupying power until all outstanding issues are resolved. This "principle" can be described only as an ingenious invention; it has no basis in traditional international law.

The adoption of any such rule (designed to limit Israel's freedom of action and give Hamas a legal leg up in its continuing conflict) should be actively opposed by the United States. Its adoption would suggest that no occupying power can withdraw of its own volition without incurring continuing, and perhaps permanent, legal obligations to a territory. This issue is particularly acute regarding territory not otherwise controlled by a functioning state -- failed states or failed areas of states where the "legitimate" government cannot or will not exercise effective control. Such places -- call them badlands -- were once rare. Over the past 15 years, though, there has been an explosion in the number of such areas, notably parts of Afghanistan, Somalia and portions of Pakistan.

Gaza is exceptional only in that its international legal status is indeterminate. Its last true sovereign was the Ottoman Porte. It was part of the British Palestine Mandate and has since been administered by both Egypt and Israel. Today, no state claims sovereign authority, though it is expected that Gaza will become part of a future Palestinian state. For its part, Hamas acknowledges no higher authority and functions as a de facto government in Gaza. It is a classic example of a terrorist-controlled badland.

Unduly handicapping states that intervene in such badlands -- whether to protect their own interests, those of the local population or both -- is unrealistic and irresponsible. Requiring agreement by the "international community" (whatever that may be) as a precondition for extinguishing such a designation is equally unproductive if the goal is saving lives. Consider the example of Darfur.

Even worse is pretending that groups such as Hamas are merely criminal gangs that must be dealt with as a local policing problem -- just one of the potential side effects of imposing an "occupied" status on a territory. This implicates U.S. interests directly, since America's ability to use robust armed force against al-Qaeda and similar non-state actors remains critical to defending our civilian population from attack. Efforts to limit states' rights to use military force against such groups simply benefit the globe's worst rogue elements and endanger the civilian populations among which they operate. Here, as in so many other areas, the traditional international law that imposes the obligations of an occupier only on states that physically occupy a territory makes perfect sense.
Posted by: ryuge || 05/11/2008 09:29 || Comments || Link || [6 views] Top|| File under:


Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Hezbollah's Divine Betrayal of Lebanon
Hezbollah prepares to claim another divine victory, again at the expense of Lebanon and its embattled citizens.

Lebanon's peace has been fragile since the end of the first civil war, eighteen hard years of healing and progress were erased, and for what? So that Iran and Syria could flex their muscles to the west? Because Hezbollah needed another opportunity to demonstrate its infamy to the civilized world? Because politicians egos were challenged?

In just a matter of days, the Syria/Iran backed militia has set Lebanon back more than twenty years, effectively handing Israel the best 60th birthday gift they could have ever wished for.

Turning the very unmatched arsenal used to fight the Israeli Army, on their fellow countrymen. Treason doesn't quite cover the magnitude of Hezbollah's actions - you only need to turn on a handful of fellow citizens to be considered a traitor - the Shi'ite militia brought the dreaded words "civil war" back to the lips of a nation which has spent the past eighteen years trying to escape that dark past.

Masked gunmen on the streets of West Beirut firing rocket propelled grenades in densely populated neighborhoods is a sight no Lebanese expected they would have to live through again. Shi'ite gunmen killing Sunnis (pictured right) as they mourn the death of family members killed the day before.

The Lebanese are all too familiar with Syria's divisive tactics in ruling Lebanon, but never in a million years would one expect fellow countrymen to turn their backs on an entire nation the way Hezbollah have today.

Hezbollah's existence is fully dependent on war and conflict, the militia has no future in a peaceful and civil Lebanon. The decisions made by the government to secure its future as a militia free country have clearly threatened to bring order to the perpetual chaos Hezbollah thrives on.

What frightens me the most is the intricate premeditated plan Hezbollah had clearly assembled to be able to seize control of the entire West Beirut in less than 48 hours, and the joy on the faces of the militiamen, like the Hezbollah gunman pictured right, as they proceed to terrorize fellow countrymen.

Just as Barack Obama described frustrated middle America, Hezbollah's bitter followers also "cling to religion and guns". Nothing is sacred to Hezbollah except their weapons. Hassan Nasrallah has never preached to his followers about a bright future and prosperous Lebanon, but rather filled their heads with messages of hatred and violence.

Freedom of the press, one of Lebanon's most treasured liberties, is the latest victim in the long list of constitutional laws trampled on by the Shi'ite militia. On Friday, Hezbollah forced the closure of a pro-government television station and newspaper. Unhappy with the news broadcast on Future TV, militiamen used the Lebanese Army to seize control of the building, then proceeded to burn it down with grenades, rockets and molatov cocktails.

For the sake of a Lebanon that our children can one day call home, I pray that our nation of honorable, law abiding citizens can forgive Hezbollah for its deplorable war on its own people and for holding an entire nation hostage for its political gains. I also pray that Hezbollah's strong following can one day be law abiding citizens, in a country which honors freedom and prosperity more than death and war.

Posted by: Fred || 05/11/2008 00:00 || Comments || Link || [6 views] Top|| File under: Hezbollah

#1  So, Hezbollah = middle America, eh? Nice one.
Posted by: gromky || 05/11/2008 1:24 Comments || Top||

#2  Again, IMO they need to protect and empower NUCLEAR IRAN + NUCLEAR JIHAD-RADICALISM/MILITANCY + ultimately NUCLEAR ISLAMIST EMPIRE/BLOC [vv Iran]. IFF NO US-IRAN WAR > Iran + Radical Islam will use the interim to acquire strategic weapons + retaliatory capabilities AMAP ASAP for RENEWED GLOBAL JIHAD after 2010 or 2012/13.

LEST WE FERGIT > MSM - described Dubya's anti-Terror strategies as akin to RANDOM BUT DIFFERENTIATED, WIDE-PATTERN EXPANDING INK DROPS HERE AND THERE ON PIECE OF PAPER. One can argue that Radicla Islam is takinga cue from the MSM's own descriptions, i.e. ISLAMIST ANTi-US VERSION OF "INK DROP" = COMMIE "LOCAL/BATTLE/WAR ZONE" STRATEGEMS???
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 05/11/2008 19:36 Comments || Top||


Home Front Economy
An oil-addicted ex-superpower
Posted by: tipper || 05/11/2008 12:22 || Comments || Link || [5 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Dancing on the grave of that nasty US superpower.
Posted by: tipover || 05/11/2008 12:34 Comments || Top||

#2  Time to short oil?
Posted by: doc || 05/11/2008 12:38 Comments || Top||

#3  I hate articles from morons who don't understand economics.

Hey, how come nobody is demanding a "windfall profits tax" from gold miners? Gold (and pretty much every other internationally traded commodity) is up (way up) for pretty much the same reason as oil is. The dollar is down (way down).

Oil companies do not set the price of oil and neither does the US government. Allowing for inflation, oil is STILL cheaper.

And oil companies don't set oil prices any more than gold miners set the price of gold. Oh, and:

The median forecast of experts polled by the International Energy Workshop in January 1986 was for crude oil prices of $240 by 2005 (in today’s dollars). Four years earlier, the median forecast for 2000 was $400.

Posted by: crosspatch || 05/11/2008 12:53 Comments || Top||

#4  The guy's big idea is that Uncle Sam was a superpower earlier because it had cheap oil from domestic sources, and continued to be a superpower as domestic reserves ran down because it got access to cheap oil via compliant suppliers in the Gulf states. The problem with his big idea is that by that that measure, the Gulf States ought to be superpowers. It also does not account for the Gulf states' repeated attempts to hike prices to the moon, notably during the two oil crises of the seventies. (We are only now returning - on an inflation-adjusted basis - to those peak prices).

The amount of wishful thinking - mainly as it relates to their hopes for American decline - in the liberal intelligentsia (since liberalism started turning against America in the 1960's) is just incredible. How can anyone get a tenured position based such easily refutable ideas?
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 05/11/2008 13:10 Comments || Top||

#5  If my math is correct Evian @ $2/l works out to right around $320/bbl. Clearly what we need is a windfall profits tax on bottled water.
Posted by: AzCat || 05/11/2008 13:12 Comments || Top||

#6  AC: If my math is correct Evian @ $2/l works out to right around $320/bbl. Clearly what we need is a windfall profits tax on bottled water.

That's not necessarily a good example. If gasoline were sold like bottled water (with nice packaging, on retail store shelves, a quart at a time), it would be a lot more expensive. A cubic meter (just over six petroleum barrels) of water costs about $0.50 to extract using reverse osmosis methods. (This is the expensive stuff - water from rivers and reservoirs costs $1.50 for 23 petroleum barrels). Most oil costs anywhere between a few dollars and tens of dollars per barrel to extract. Not the same thing at all.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 05/11/2008 13:38 Comments || Top||

#7  Look at the price difference between motor oil by the quart and the 2.5 gal jug.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 05/11/2008 13:49 Comments || Top||

#8  hampshire college, the reed of the east.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 05/11/2008 13:53 Comments || Top||

#9  Allowing for inflation, oil is STILL cheaper.

Not so.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 05/11/2008 14:04 Comments || Top||

#10  Hampshire has some good attributes; it's the host of one of the best programs for high school math students. Reed is just weird.
Posted by: Eric Jablow || 05/11/2008 14:05 Comments || Top||

#11  ZF: The problem with his big idea is that by that that measure, the Gulf States ought to be superpowers.

In fact, by that measure, the Soviet Union ought not have collapsed, since it had so much cheap oil that it was able to export the stuff before its collapse. And Iraq ought really have defeated the United States in battle, given that it exported millions of barrels of oil a year.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 05/11/2008 14:26 Comments || Top||

#12  HRC's plan to remove taxes on gasoline this summer will have the effect of increasing the demand for gasoline while the supply remains about the same--the price will be right back up before long. These short term fixes feel good for a short time. The thing that will bring the price of gasoline down will to be to increase the supply. The supply can be increased by relaxing some of the regulations we have about where we can drill and where we can't drill for oil. The other way that we can improve the situation is to come up with alternative energy sources for our transportation such as getting ethanol from switch grasses, hydrogen powered vehicles, affordable electric vehicles, etc.
Posted by: JohnQC || 05/11/2008 18:32 Comments || Top||

#13  Zhang Fei #4 The guy's big idea is that Uncle Sam was a superpower earlier because it had cheap oil from domestic sources, and continued to be a superpower as domestic reserves ran down because it got access to cheap oil via compliant suppliers in the Gulf states. The problem with his big idea is that by that that measure, the Gulf States ought to be superpowers. It also does not account for the Gulf states' repeated attempts to hike prices to the moon, notably during the two oil crises of the seventies. (We are only now returning - on an inflation-adjusted basis - to those peak prices).

Thanks Zhang Fei, this author/article are so fucking lame that I passed it up earlier...

The amount of wishful thinking - mainly as it relates to their hopes for American decline - in the liberal intelligentsia (since liberalism started turning against America in the 1960's) is just incredible. How can anyone get a tenured position based such easily refutable ideas?

Besides, the WEST and our Eastern Allies will solve the so called "Energy Problem" and lower real prices for energy once again, WE still have tremendous oil reserves here in America.

But for political reasons we could begin tapping them tomorrow.
In the OFF SHORE Caliphornia, and the North Slope Alaska Reserves we have alot more OIL than is officially recorded from current estimates.

The reason I say this is because HISTORICALLY ALL ESTIMATES are by far way to conservative and they underestimate the eventual totals.
Posted by: RD || 05/11/2008 19:27 Comments || Top||

#14  Besides which, name ONE productive economy anywhere in the world that is not "oil-addicted" as defined by the space cadet author of this piece. Oil is the lifeblood of every major economy in the world and will continue to be so until such time as replacements for it in transportation, power generation, plastics and chemical production, and medical production can be found, put into place and mass produced.
Posted by: Shieldwolf || 05/11/2008 19:37 Comments || Top||

#15  Maybe the "ex-superpower" refers to inability to just, you know, take?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru || 05/11/2008 19:54 Comments || Top||

#16  g: Maybe the "ex-superpower" refers to inability to just, you know, take?

In the post-WWII era, Western powers do not just take (with the sole exception of Israel) - that is something reserved for non-Western powers. This isn't so much lack of capability as lack of will.

I think any significant power in the world can just take. Saddam could have just taken Kuwait, if it were not for US intervention. If Congress had voted down Bush's invasion plan back in 1990, Kuwait would today be Iraq's 19th province. The only power in the world that can stop any other country from just taking is the US. I think that's the primary measure of a superpower. If China invaded Vietnam tomorrow, we could throw them out. If Uncle Sam invaded Mexico tomorrow, no other power in the world could stop us.

This is the meaning of Pax Americana - militarily, we can do what we want, and we can prevent anyone from doing what we don't want.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 05/11/2008 20:25 Comments || Top||

#17  Also, there is a big difference between being a superpower and an imperial power : superpowers can throw their weight around and force countries to behave; imperial powers simply go into a country, slaughter all resistance, and then incorporate that territory into them - sort of like the Chicom imperialists did in Tibet, the border zone with India, the border zone with Vietnam, Macau, and Hong Kong.
Posted by: Shieldwolf || 05/11/2008 21:11 Comments || Top||

#18  I think his major premise is the one beloved by leftists and a lot of foreign countries - that Uncle Sam has a large military because this military gets the US preferential pricing for raw materials. The assumption is that without this powerful military, the US dollar would be little more than toilet paper and Americans would be living in a Mad Max world embroiled a domestic war of all against all for material goods (since in that leftist world view a capitalist economy can only obtain goods via theft and extortion). Bottom line - the author believes that the US, uniquely among the Western countries, would be a basket case economy if it did not have a large military to strong-arm foreign countries to sell commodities to it at below-market prices.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 05/11/2008 21:17 Comments || Top||



Who's in the News
30[untagged]
5Hezbollah
5Govt of Pakistan
5Hamas
3Mahdi Army
3Taliban
2al-Qaeda in Iraq
2al-Qaeda
1Thai Insurgency
1TNSM
1IRGC
1Govt of Sudan

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog











On Sale now!


A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.

Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.

Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has dominated Mexico for six years.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark

Two weeks of WOT
Sun 2008-05-11
  Army sides with Nasrallah against Leb govt
Sat 2008-05-10
  Leb coup d'etat: Hezbollah seizes control of west Beirut
Fri 2008-05-09
  Hezbollah seizes large parts of Beirut
Thu 2008-05-08
  Hezbollah at war with Leb
Wed 2008-05-07
  Hezbollah telecom network shut down
Tue 2008-05-06
  3500 U.S. troops surge home
Mon 2008-05-05
  Kaboom misses Iraqi first lady
Sun 2008-05-04
  24 killed, 26 injured in Iraqi violence
Sat 2008-05-03
  Marines chase Talibs through Helmand poppy fields
Fri 2008-05-02
  Orcs strike Iraqi wedding convoy, kill at least 35, wound 65
Thu 2008-05-01
  Paks deny Karzai murder plot hatched in Pakistain
Wed 2008-04-30
  Hamas steals Gaza fuel
Tue 2008-04-29
  Pak Talibs quit peace talks
Mon 2008-04-28
  U.S. Marines join Brits fighting Taliban in Helmand
Sun 2008-04-27
  Karzai survives another assassination attempt


Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
3.145.115.195
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Operations (22)    WoT Background (11)    Non-WoT (13)    Local News (6)    (0)