It’s strangely ironic that prostitution can exist in an Iranian holy city, though I guess the world’s oldest profession will always find a way.
Archive for the 'Middle East' Category
Obama puts forward the “the same incoherent litmus test he mentioned a few days ago.” This is a test that “conveniently allows him to talk to Iran — a sovereign state … but otherwise guilty of the same sins he lists vis-a-vis Hamas — while ignoring Hamas lest it put him on the wrong side of pro-Israel voters.”
My question is how does one not consider Iran to be a terrorist organization? Yes, it has borders, yes it has a hierarchical structure unlike the network-based structure of a terrorist organization. But Iran still wants to DESTROY Israel. Iran is still funding terrorist groups, giving money to the families of suicide bombers, and training forces that are killing U.S. and allied soldiers.
To me, Iran is a terrorist organization dressed up as a state. Obama, Clinton, Carter, or the State Department can talk all they want with Iran. This won’t change Iran’s goals of ruling the middle-east and pushing the Jewish people into the sea. It took millions of lives and a world war to realize that Hitler wasn’t playing around. Will it take that much to force us to realize Iran isn’t playing around?
What’s even scarier nowadays is the realistic possibility that a so-called state can conceivably pass off a nuke to a terrorist organization who would then detonate it wherever it pleases. There would be no smoking gun and it would be nearly impossible to connect officially such an action to a “state.” Just by virtue of having borders and some form of centralized government, Iran can allow “unaffiliated” terrorist organizations do its dirty work while it can bask in one of the benefits of statehood, namely unending diplomacy and talks which further legitimizes an undeserving and dangerous terrorist organization state.
Throughout the years, many Democrats have complained of the so-called power and influence of “big oil,” the companies like Exxon who apparently have too much power and have gouged consumers by charging too much, especially after hurricanes and powerful weather events. I say this in sarcasm. But still, some politicians have called for taxing profits of these companies and now Obama has hinted that he would use the Strategic Petroleum Reserves to combat increased oil prices.
With all this in mind, the QandO blog does an excellent job of debunking the myth held by liberals and Democrats that “big oil” wields too much power. Some of the points made is that almost 80% of the oil market is controlled by foreign national oil companies. These are entities like the Saudi Arabian Co., National Iranian Oil Co., and the Iraq National Oil Co.
Another piece of evidence are the earnings of the oil industry. The oil and natural gas industry falls far behind many other industries in terms of earnings, so why is “big oil” constantly picked on by liberal politicians? Perhaps they’re just easy targets and scapegoats, but nevertheless, the so-called big oil companies wield a VERY insignificant amount of power and influence compared to the oil cartel OPEC and the foreign national oil companies.
I found this quote over at Overcoming Bias:
“The simple fact is that non-violent means do not work against Evil. Gandhi’s non-violent resistance against the British occupiers had some effect because Britain was wrong, but not Evil. The same is true of the success of non-violent civil rights resistance against de jure racism. Most people, including those in power, knew that what was being done was wrong. But Evil is an entirely different beast. Gandhi would have gone to the ovens had he attempted non-violent resistance against the Nazis. When one encounters Evil, the only solution is violence, actual or threatened. That’s all Evil understands.”
What immediately came to my mind is the current situation in the Middle East, Iraq, Syria, and especially Iran. By all outward appearances and indications, the leaders of Iran appear to be religious whackos that would destroy Israel if they thought they could get away with it. They claim they are developing nuclear capabilities only for civilian and peaceful uses, but this claim lacks any sort of credibility. Who is the judge of when diplomacy and non-violent sanctions can no longer work? I get the feeling that in the next ten years, the world will most likely be witness to a “test” detonation of a nuclear weapon, either in Iran or in Israel. By then it is too late. As Thompson pointed out, Evil cannot be persuaded with non-violence.
I have a difficult time of seeing the Iranian leadership in any other light.
Mack Frankfurter’s article entitled “Retrospective: The Mysterious Case of Massive Liquidity” is a small history of how the world has created the current, huge amount of liquidity and the types of problems such liquidity poses. The author compares liquidity to a drug addict, which I assume is meant to convey the seriousness of the situation.
The problem with liquidity is that it is like an addictive drug–initially it produces euphoria which then disappears with increasing tolerance. Once an economy is hooked it needs more and more in order to sustain itself and withdrawal can be difficult. The riddle is whether the central banks have succeeded in breaking the cycle, not the inflationary cycle which in fact it has enthusiastically subsidized, but the deflationary cycle. Has the sheer bulk of global liquidity forestalled the kind of contraction that paralyzed business activity in the Depression and demoralized speculative activity for a generation after that?
I recommend reading this if you’d like to try to gain a better understanding or additional perspective about current economic matters.
There’s no doubt in my mind that if the U.S. simply left the Middle East or stopped supporting Israel, as a certain Republican presidential hopeful advocates, the world would be left in a much more precarious and perilous state. I doubt that things like the Israelis seizing North Korean nuclear material from Syria would have been able to occur without our sanction and support.
Israeli commandos seized nuclear material of North Korean origin during a daring raid on a secret military site in Syria before Israel bombed it this month, according to informed sources in Washington and Jerusalem.
The attack was launched with American approval on September 6 after Washington was shown evidence the material was nuclear related, the well-placed sources say.
They confirmed that samples taken from Syria for testing had been identified as North Korean. This raised fears that Syria might have joined North Korea and Iran in seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.
Despite how he hates how Iraq has long been mismanaged, Ralph Peters writes that there is not a sensible way of leaving Iraq that won’t undercut American security and won’t produce massive innocent casualties. Continue reading ‘What Will Happen If/When We Leave Iraq?’
Victor Davis Hanson adds to what Michael Yon has reported about the Islamic extremist barbarians. A couple of days ago, Yon reported that al Qaeda served up a son for dinner to his own family, had literally been baked and prepared to be eaten. Continue reading ‘Barbarians I Tell You’
I’ve got a sneaky suspicion that the United Nations and many other countries would rather see Iran obtain nukes than America launch a new war to prevent said nukes from becoming a reality. Continue reading ‘Iran Slowing Down on the Whole Nuclear Enrichment Thingy’
This is not the first time a liberal newspaper has misportrayed what is actually going on in Iraq, nor will this be the last. Those against the presence of our soldiers in the Middle East will continue to do or say what they think will continue to sway public opinion even more against the war on terror taking place. Continue reading ‘WaPo Iraq Reporting Conflicts With Reality’
