Tuesday, July 31, 2007

US to Sell Arms to Saudi Arabia (?!?)

Okay, let me get this straight: of the 60 to 80 terrorists streaming into Iraq, perhaps as many as 50% are from Saudi Arabia, who continues to do, really, very little about it. And yet, we're going to sell them arms, as a foil against Iran, who probably provides most of the rest of the terrorists.

And one wonders why we can't make any traction is stamping out terrorism and Islamic extremism.

Good Anti-Ahmadinejad Site

Just wanted to provide a link to an anti-Imajihadi (or whatever his name is), in case you're into that sort of thing. Which you should be. It's:


Another in a Long List of Stories about America's Military Planning

I hate it when military preparations are broadcast on international news--by American media. It's not proposing censorship that they show a little restraint.

For example, here's a story about B-2 bombers being retrofitted to carry bunker buster bombs. They'd work great, especially on sites like Iran's nuclear facilities.

That's why the headline of the story, "Is Iran Busted?" bothers me so much. Not only are the preparations spelled out, but a direct link to Iran is drawn quite clearly by the story. Ironically, the story goes on to spell out some very specific (and surprising) reasons why attacking Iran would be justified and prudent. To quote:

Iran has so far ignored pleas that it suspend nuclear development. It has also flouted two sets of international sanctions intended to make Iran's government comply with United Nations resolutions requesting it to shut down its program.

Iran is clearly linked to terrorists in the Middle East who are killing innocent civilians and U.S. troops in Iraq.

Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini declared war on America in 1979 after Islamist students stormed the U.S. embassy and took hostages.

Tehran has threatened the existence of Israel, a nation that poses no danger to Iran, accords equal rights to its Arab citizens and, until recently, had the only freely elected government in the Middle East.

Iran supports the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which produce an unhealthy instability in the region.

Now, imagine the world with a nuclear-armed Iran.

That just about sums it up. Just hush up a bit about US military planning, would you?

Shocking News: Russian Oil Company Sold Involuntarily

This is one brave dude: Mikhail Gutseriev, owner of private oil company Russneft, has spoken out about the upcoming sale of the company to a Kremlin loyalist. Specifically, he says that the sale was not voluntary.

The last guy who spoke up like this is still in prison after eight years. I wonder what's in store for Gutseriev.*

*Note: The guy was once a Kremlin insider himself before falling out of favor. So I won't be shedding too many tears.

Daily Kos: Lieberman Does What to Bush?!?

I think I've now officially broken my "no Daily Kos" postings three times in the last week. But here's a tasteful picture posted on that wonderful site that I'm sure will appeal to the loony Left that's taken over the Democratic party.

I doubt that it will appeal to many others.

Digg Report

Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 4313 Diggs, is a link to a bible with a warning sticker on it. As an Objectivist and an atheist, I think such points can be made with better taste and more philosophical meaning.

Funny, but the comments are unusually mixed on this one. I guess religion is one are where the Diggsters are genuinely heterogeneous.

Palestinian Terror: The Result of Child Abuse?

Here's a fascinating discussion, titled "The Real Roots of Palestinian Terror," on FrontPage Magazine, that discusses a study that shows widespread child abuse as at least partially responsible for the incessent violence.

Some quotes:

Apart from cynical (appeasing Saudi and other Arab oil power) and realpolitik (trying to concoct a Sunni coalition against Iran) motives, all the Western bigwigs could not invest so much time and prestige in this issue without some genuine belief that it is resolvable. If the Palestinians’ problem is not Israeli occupation (totally removed in Gaza and partially in the West Bank) or settlements (totally destroyed in Gaza), then it must be weak institutions, or not enough guns for Fatah, or not enough Arab states present at the latest convocation with Israel.

And so if it's not really the Israeli occupation (because that no longer really exists), nor the other reasons listed, then what is it? The story speculates:

The physician and researcher Daphne Burdman, writing in the Jewish Political Studies Review, says the Palestinians’ ongoing aggression toward Israel and Jews results from Koranic and Hadith teachings, the PA’s own brand of systematic indoctrination and incitement, and “psychological processes arising from Arab childrearing practices.” The first two factors are more familiar than the third, which requires much more attention from people concerned about this conflict.

The story goes on to say how because of the collectivist nature of Arab societies, the abused child, once grown, strikes out not against society at large, as in individualistic societies, but against the "enemy" about whom the child was indoctrinated against. Hence, the hatred and violence against the Jew and against Israel.

It makes a sort of horrid sense, and if true, then it makes even more pertinent Ayn Rand's position that cultures are defined by their underlying philosophies (in this case, at least in part) collectivist vs. individualist, and that issues such as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will never be resolved until the irrational side becomes rational.

Given the current state of Palestine and the West's own mixed philosophy, however, I find that a dubious proposition at best.

Strong Russia Required for Global Stability?

I agree with most of this post on Russia, except I'm not sure what he means by "A strong Russia is a necessary component of global stability, and the Russians should have the right to sit at any global table as equals, bound by international law." Most of his thesis seems to be that Russia is heading toward a dangerous sort of dictatorship, and so how a "strong Russia" could be a good thing in that context is perplexing.

I've asked for clarification, and will update this post if I receive it.