browser notes

This blog is designed to work on IE6.x, Opera6.x, and NS7.x, and, pretty much, it does. To anyone still using Netscape Communicator 4.x, sorry about that. I'm not clever enough with hacking to make that obsolete browser look good. If you don't like using MS IE, my suggestion is opera or Netscape 7.x. Netscape 7.x is free for downloading and parses much, much better. Opera is better (as in faster downloads) but costs if you don't want annoying ads. Major plus for Opera is that it has an option to disable popups, something you'll need extra software to do with IE or NS (although Mozilla, which shares the basic code with NS, also allows you to disable popups).

Never trust a naked inspector

An article by Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Program on Nuclear Arms Control pretty much summarizes why the current U.N.-sanctioned inspection scheme must fail. He provides necessary details in a November 26, 2002 Wall Street Journal editorial page article.

The fault lies with the diplomatic mentality that must at all costs prize process over results. After all, it is the processes of diplomacy that allow all of these international bureaucrats to continue their well-paid, tax-free lifestyles over years if not decades. And quite a lifestyle it is for those who work out of the various U.N. headquarters in such rundown, disease-ridden poverty-stricken places as Geneva, New York, and Vienna.

Your humble blogger has tasted of this fruit, as he was at one time seconded as a (very) part-time "expert" from his U.S. government post to the International Atomic Energy Agency to assist some of their nuclear inspection efforts. [This was a very long time ago and did not deal directly with Iraq, so I claim no insider's knowledge about the current situation. And, I did not spend very much time hobnobbing with the boyos in Vienna; after seeing what actually went on within the IAEA, I decided it was a sham and not worth the effort] My conclusions about the IAEA, and hence Hans Blix, its long-time director general:

• diversity on a regional and national basis at every management level of the IAEA is more important than actual expertise
• the tension between have and have-not nations is more important than preventing nonproliferation of nuclear weapons
• to get anything accomplished requires a consensus of the Board of Governors, and this is neither easy to obtain nor timely
• at best, all the IAEA can do if verify that a diversion (of material or technology) has occurred; in no wise can it prevent it, unless one believes that toothless sanctions will do the trick.

An example of the swift, hammer-like "action" of the IAEA is reflected on their website (nice design, by the way...at least their webtechs are good) with this mighty pronouncement:

In Vienna 29 November, the IAEA Board of Governors called upon the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) to accept "without delay" talks proposed by the Agency to clarify recent disclosures about the DPRK

Now, this is six weeks (mid-October) since the North Koreans blandly admitted to having a nuclear weapons capability. And the IAEA has just gotten around to insisting that there be "talks" "without delay" to do what? To "clarify" things.

I recognize that Hans Blix is not now running an IAEA inspection. But can there be any doubt that his mode of operation will be very much taken from the IAEA big 'ol book of how not to find the obvious? If the United States continues to go along with the charade of see-no evil, hear-no evil, speak-no evil inspections, shame on us. President Bush, you and your administration look quite wobbly at this moment, to quietly acquiesce in such a sham.

The war continues, but of course it's America's fault...

Yesterday's two-continent attacks against Israeli interests and persons should leave no doubts in anyone's mind that Islamic terror is the enemy of civilization. Further, while al qaeda and other Islamist groups may not have a central headquarters nor shared leadership, they are bound together by their shared interpretation of Islam and their willingness to kill unarmed civilians rather than stand and fight like men.

The attack in Israel, at a Likud polling place, was unintentionally symbolic -- killing those engaged in a democratic pursuit that you can't find in any Arab nation. As in, exercising the freedom to choose the leaders of your faction, with all abiding by the result, with that leader then standing for election before the larger electorate. Let's have some of those in any Arab nation before people criticise Israel's democracy as being imperfect.

Down in Kenya, black Africans had to die to satisfy Arab-Muslim bloodlust for Jews, even those on holiday. Whether this was al qaeda or some other group of evil-doers is beside the point; that there is even a question about authorship of the attack merely confirms that hamas, moslem brotherhood, al qaeda, are all rotten fruit from the tree of evil.

Of course, our own multicultural, pomo press leader, the New York Times just had to include a blame America sentence in this story about Kenyans killed or injured by the Islamists:

I was just walking down the street and America's foreign policies caused me to get knocked down and hurt," another victim said recently. "I had nothing to do with it."

The clear implication of this, and the tone and tenor of the article, is that, somehow, American foreign policy is to blame because Islamists work their evil in Kenya.

Diogenes, Tom Friedman has a job for you

Diogenes (d. 320 bce) is famous for searching for one honest Athenian. And failing. He would be just the fellah to search for the "Muslim moderates" Mr. Friedman writes of in today's New York Times op-ed piece. And just as liable to fail in this task.

Oh, I suspect that one may find Muslims who call themselves moderate, and certainly many, many who are good and kind to their fellow Muslims. But here's the catch -- history, and current events, conspire to deny that a Muslim society can ever be "moderate" in the tolerant, liberal sense as we in the West understand the term. Muslims do not have, and have never had, separation of mosque and state. To be sure, there are Muslims who live under secular governments, but, let us be crystal clear, not in states identifiably Muslim in character.

It is a basic tenet of Islam ("submission") that all others must submit to the rule of Muslims under the Koran. Such submission may be benign and even promote the flourishing of literature and science, as in pre-1200 Moorish Spain when there was a notional "Golden Age" for Jews and Christians living under the caliphate. But the rule, even then, was that those in dhimmi status, i.e. non-Muslims, were second class citizens even by the extremely limited notion of what a citizen's rights were at that time.

Today's world brings daily demonstrations of what evils await those who allow themselves to be placed under the Islamist yoke. It is only by throwing off this burden that people may at least start to journey on the road to freedom. The Turks are worrisome, insofar as they may be backsliding towards a caliphate once again. But they are our only solid example of a modern state that has (so far) successfully thrown off the Islamic shakles that bound it to a world that ended almost 1000 years ago.

We feel your pain

More apologia from the poor, insulted Saudis. Seems we Yanks just don't understand these noble desert dwellers. Today's story in the New York Times (front page of the print edition, above the fold no less). The immediate issue is a series of cash gifts from one of many princesses. This particular princess appears to be worthy of the HRH title, as such a title might be used in a real nation with real royalty, and waxes indignant at the mere thought that Saudi money, which comes mostly from thee and me to buy oil, might, just might, have found its way into the hands of the 15 Saudis who were hijackers.

Shocked, I tell ya, I'm just shocked, that Saudi money would wind up in the hands of malefactors. Whether this particular set of gifts, over a two year period, found its way into the hands of the evil ones, may never be satisfactorily proven. But what has been demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, is that there is a pattern of Islamic, Saudi-funded charities, that provide significant funds to all sorts of terrorist outfits. These include the ever-popular choice al qaeda, as well as those fun-lovin' hamas buttholes.

The concerns of the Saudi ambassador, prince Bandar, along with princess Haifa (named after an Israeli city, I see) were dutifully related by the ever-concerned Times:

Both Prince Bandar and Princess Haifa said they were concerned that the clash of civilizations that President Bush and other leaders had sought to prevent since Sept. 11 was beginning to take hold in both countries.

"Of course I am worried," he said. "When we start bad-mouthing other people's religion, common sense goes out the window."

Well, I don't know about "bad-mouthing other people's religion." In the Saudi sandbox, there's only one religion allowed, and those who openly practice another are subject to arrest, expulsion, and even execution (if you are a Saudi citizen who professes Christ as Lord, you're dead meat). Princy is right; we "bad-mouth" Islam; they're more serious, and simply forbid and suppress all non-approved religions.

Again, if these desert rats had only sand and not oil and gas, does anyone think we'd do anything except send them care packages? Didn't think so. In conclusion, it's always wise to recall the seminal article by Victor Davis Hanson that appeared in the July/August 2002 issue of Commentary. Here's the abstract:

It is time for Washington to recognize its despotic, oil-rich "ally" for what it is, and act accordingly. Hanson discusses the rampant corruption in the Saudi royal family, its authoritarian governing philosophy, Saudi Arabia's support for terrorism, its interference in US domestic affairs and the need for the US to revamp its foreign policy to encourage democratic reform in Saudi Arabia.

Religion of Pieces, cont'd

"Down with beauty", chants the Islamic mob. Burn the infidels, literally. Destroy churches, and even mosques used by those who are not Islamically correct. The Islamic mob, in Nigeria, has killed at least 105, according to this Reuters update. And what major, earth-shattering issue gets these machete-wielding savages to commit these atrocities?

A story in a Nigerian newspaper that allegedly insults the prophet, Mohammed. The story, and the protests, hinge around a banal event scheduled for December 7, 2002 (after Ramadan ends) -- a Miss World beauty contest. One has to have some sympathy for those who detest the worship of the female form, and the denigration of women who do not conform to the Miss World's standards of beauty. My view is that such things are anachronisms and should be ended; they lack class.

But let's get real. My opinion, and yours, are just that, and we should be free to express them, even engage in peaceful protests if we are strongly moved by the issue. To kill in the name of the religion of peace is obscene; it once again affirms that there can be no peace, not now, not ever, with Moslems who tolerate this terrorism comitted in their name.

Where is the denunciation of this atrocity from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other valiant defenders of the faith?

Actually, Al, he hasn't

Another country heard from, this time the People's Republic of Gorestan. Mr. Gore, still pondering how he could have lost to a beer-swilling, bubble-headed frat boy whose dad got him where he is today (oh - Senator Albert Gore, Sr.? ...hmmm, best drop the ol' silver spoon attack). In the midst of this pondering, Al weighs in with these muddled opinions, reported in today's Washington Post:

• the President "beat the war drums" against Iraq to win the mid-term elections
  
• Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network pose a greater immediate danger than does Iraqi President Saddam Hussein
  
• Bush's decision to shift attention to possible war with Iraq, he said, represented "an historic mistake" that has left Afghanistan facing chaos and U.S. intelligence agencies without some of the resources needed to carry out the war against terrorism.

Wow. Hard to know where to begin. Well, let's start with the basics. The war on terror includes eliminating Saddam Hussein's evil regime and its weapons of mass destruction. The fight against the al Qaeda scum is but one element of the war against terror. As for "immediate" danger, it is true that al Qaeda poses a greater imminent threat, but imagine the threat potential once (not if, but when) Saddam provides al Qaeda with WMD capabilities.

A second but not secondary point is that use of overwhelming force to eliminate Iraq as a threat will send a clear message that we've still got a dog in this fight; Afghanistan was but the first. As for Afghanistan "facing chaos", this is just Big Al's heart bleeding because we don't have sufficient resources for "nation building" in that part of the world, at least not to Al's satisfaction. I don't know if the average Afghani is better off today than under the Taliban; I'd like to think that they are. But, more importantly, we are better off, since Afghanistan no longer poses a significant risk to us by harboring terrorists.

Finally, the charge, common to the leftocrats that the President "beat the war drums" for political purposes, is beneath even Mr. Gore. That beating of war drums, which was actually rather muted from this neocon's perspective, was and remains the right thing, regardless of politics. My concern remains that the President's rhetoric may exceed his will to act when (again, not if) it becomes clear that Saddam will not willingly play nice with the willfully blind Hans Blix et. cie.

December 8, 2002, looms as a credibility check on American intentions to disarm Iraq. In the meantime, to Big Al Gore: Run, Al, run on an anti-war platform. Give Dubya a walk to his second term.

Let's give them martyrdom

The Islamokillers continue, violating the Jewish Sabbath and human decency by killing 11 Jewish Palestinians (yep, Jews were there in Hebron centuries before the current witches' brew of bedouin, arab, and turk known as "Palestinians" arrived in the late 19th century). The story, with a major inaccuracy, is in todays Washington Post.

The Jews were on their way for regular Sabbath prayers at the Tomb of the Patriarchs, which, according to the Post, is a shrine revered by both Muslims and Jews, and, "[t]he site is the burial place of the biblical Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who are revered by both faiths". Of course, how could a writer named "Nasser", for God's sake, be expected to know that muslims would have nothing to do with Isaac, let alone Israel, aka Jacob? To know this, you'd have to read the Scriptures. As in, our Scriptures, if you are Christian, or Jewish. Can you say, "Ishmael", boys and girls?

Moving on to more unpleasant things, one slimeball jihadi, mohammed something or other, you know, just like the DC area sniper, made this statement: "our Jihad will continue until either victory or martyrdom." Fine; IDF, give him what he seeks, and it sure won't be a victory.

[update Sunday, 11.17.02] Apparently those killed were soldiers guarding those going to Sabbath prayer. One assumes that in some circles, such murder is acceptable. The updated story is here.

So what?

An "American" was among 6 killed by that Predator-launched Hellfire missile, according to today's NY Times. The article also notes, however, that unamed "United States officials stressed that they still believe that all of those killed were linked to Al Qaeda". American is in ironic quotation marks, since it is impossible for me to consider as citizens those who, foreign or native born, live willingly with our enemies, and actively take up arms against the United States. They are not worthy of the title, and have abandoned our country. We owe them nothing but swift justice.

The Washington Post, for a change, out-analyzes its Gotham rival, and, in a subhead, notes that the "Action's Legality, Effectiveness Questioned". The individual questioning the effectiveness is Jeffrey Smith, former general counsel of the CIA, who goes on state that "[T]o the extent you do more and more of this, it begins to look like it is policy," Smith said. "It is not clear that that is an effective tool." Worse, he goes on, in his Clintonian muddle-headed way, to state that "after a while such pinpoint targeting of individuals might suggest that it's acceptable behavior to assassinate people. . . . Assassination as a norm of international conduct exposes American leaders and Americans overseas."

Well, let's look at what might be acceptable and what might not. First, does the good counselor believe that Americans are not now "exposed" overseas? Does he think that future would-be terrorists would be more, or less, likely to engage in high profile mayhem, if they know that death is coming when they least expect it? And, yes, these were "assasinations", in that sense, and, yes, they were "extralegal", although it is unclear what legal system with any moral credibility exists for al queda scum killed outside the United States, regardless of citizenship.

Those who would make an issue over "extralegal" strikes against out enemies have a moral blindness that is hard to understand. Is it better to let al queda scum live to kill innocents again? Is there any realistic likelihood that these terrorists just stamped out like the roaches they were are not but the visible salient of a larger nest? Not to mention the obvious, but terror-loving "nations" like Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, are not likely in our lifetimes to willingly start letting our law enforcement types make "legal" arrests within their terror-tory.

Logic and a moral sense of purpose, when that purpose is to protect and defend American interests around the globe, both dictate that Hellfire strikes against al queda are, indeed, acceptable.

Finally, another, sane, voice on "effectiveness", also in the Post story:

"[T]his is an extraordinary change of threshold," said one former intelligence operative who praised the tactic as particularly effective.

Keep 'em coming.

A good start

An unmanned drone launched a missile that made crispy critters of six bad guys (story here), al qaeda thugs, as they were cruising along a patch of sand (what else?) in picturesque, freedom-loving Yemen. This is most excellent, especially since there are as yet unconfirmed reports that it was the CIA that was responsible. This is good, because now every terrorist in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, wherever in the world, must know that, at least potentially, he is in the sights of an unstoppable missile. A missile that, since it is not fired by manned, military units, will not likely give much in the way of advance notice.

It is to be hoped that this signals that we have now taken our "war on terror" to be just that, a war. And not just in words, but in deeds. Not a police roundup of suspects with constitutional rights, but a fight to the death, where any armed thug is fair game by whatever means. Again, for those who don't pay close attention to our form of government, foreign nationals who partake in violent conspiracies against the United States and its citizens are entitled to no rights in our justice system; they are entitled to a swift, merciful (but not too) death at our hands where and when we are able to bring it on.

Let's keep 'em coming.

With friends like these (cont'd)

Gotta love those frisky Saudis. Always finding a way to outdo themselves in their lack of loyalty to the United States. This story is hardly surprising. The subhead, or story summary at CNN online is

Saudi Arabia's foreign minister pledged his country's allegiance with the United States in its fight against the al Qaeda terrorist group, but said Saudi Arabia would not allow its bases and airspace to be used in any U.S.-led military strike against Iraq.

A quick detour to fantasyland for a quiet moment: I think we should invite Saddam to invade Saudi Arabia, and stand aside as he opens up a big ol' clay urn of whupass on the Saudi fools who run the kitty litter box, and THEN we strike...

To nuke or not to nuke...

A continuing "peace protest" in Kitsap County, Washington, offers a fascinating contrast between those who protest for peace, and those whose work actually ensures there will be peace. The story, in the Seattle P-I, documents, in a microcosm, some of the largest issues facing the United States today in its projection of force. The knaves, fools, and the easily led protesting with signs such as shown in the photo ("I oppose invading Iraq war hurts kids") have to be given credit for bravery; they are going wildly against the grain in this area, which is home to Bangor Naval Submarine Base.

But, being passionate and brave about something that is wrong does not make these people praiseworthy. The protesters' causes appear to be that the United States should a) not hurt kids, b) not have nuclear weapons, c) not have submarines, d) not use force, ever. Oh, and there is that ever-lovin' moral equivalence garbage. In this case, one of the protesters, Brian Watson, is quoted as making this charming analogy:

The nuclear weapons aboard the boomer are "Nazi gas chambers without walls", and "In World War II, they brought people to the ovens; the Trident allows ovens to be brought to the people."

The article goes on to a more rational interview with RADM Bruce Englehardt (bio and picture), who is a Trident submarine group commander. The issue that is touched upon is the actual utility of strategic nuclear assets borne by our Trident missile submarines.

RADM Englehardt correctly deflects the question by simply noting that "[T]his ship can send a missile 4,000 miles and hit something the size of a baseball field. The war on terrorism could change the nature of the targets we have." The the Admiral also correctly noted that using the Trident as a tactical nuclear platform would require a national policy debate.

The problem, of course, is that these weapons, as now configured, are far too powerful to deal with threats such as Saddam. More accurately, they would bring unneeded death and destruction on the Iraqi people. Although, if we don't deal with Saddam, sooner or later, it may come to that. Regardless, it would be useful to again be able to project less-than-citywhacking destruction, as we used to be able to do with tactical nukes carried by fighter-bombers that can be based on land or at sea. It is certainly possible to replace the warheads now on the Trident missiles with much lower yield weapons, and perhaps this is where the debate should begin. The artificial distinction between "strategic" and "tactical" nukes, in todaty's post-bipolar world, seems important only to those who dot "i"s and cross "t"s on useless treaties in the arms control biz.

Of course, keeping those 475kt yield bad boys on station, where any location on the earth may be put at risk, will likely keep the threat to our shores down to a bare minimum...