Honduras Defending Democracy and Constitution

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

In researching the events taking place in Honduras, I see President Obama immediately cited the outster of President Manuel Zeyala as "not legal." Another "gird your loins" moment for the American President. The question is: was this a coup d'etat or a constitutional succession?

Roberto Micheletti

Why did the Supreme Court rule that ousted President Manuel Zelaya was subverting the rule of law in Honduras? Why did Congress rule the same?

Zelaya's term of office ends in 2010. He called for a "controversial referendum" to take place on June 28th. The referendum, if approved, would have made changes to the Honduran Constitution to allow Zelaya to run for office for another term, an action the Supreme Court says is not lawful.

While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

After the Supreme Court declared the referendum not lawful, Zelaya vowed to hold a vote on the referendum anyway. Zelaya dismissed "the military chief," Romeo Vasquez, who opposed Zelaya's position on the referendum. The Supreme Court asked that Vazquez be reinstated. Zelaya refused.

So on Thursday he [Zelaya] led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

The Supreme Court voted to remove Zelaya "to defend the rule of law."

The Honduran Congress later swore in its leader, Roberto Micheletti, as the new head of state after voting to remove Mr. Zelaya for "manifest irreuglar conduct" and "putting in present danger the state of the law."

Micheletti said that the orders carried out as issued by the Supreme Court and the Congress "was not a coup d'etat, but a constitutional succession."

The new government's foreign minister, Enrique Otez Colindres said the new government looks forward to meeting with OAS officials:

...so they can realize that this is a government that respects all laws and the only thing it did was to remove a president for systematically violating the constitution.

Manuel Zelaya was elected as a conservative. He has progressively moved away from that position and cemented relationships with Cuba's Castros, Venezuela's Chavez and Bolivia's Morales. As Wall Street Journal writer, O'Grady said, it is not "about left-right politics."

It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators.

So how do the Honduran people feel about the ouster? The Latin Business Chronicle says that Honduran business support the Supreme Court and Micheletti's new government:

It is extremely popular,” says Jacqueline Foglia Sandoval, former president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Honduras. “I don’t know of any one who isn’t celebrating."

[The attempted referendum] followed three years of Zelaya policies that were seen as arbitrary and often hurting business, Foglia Sandoval says.

Over the last three years, our ex president had created political and social chaos,” she says. “He [was] very unpredictable and many times [imposed] arbitrary actions that …affected the business climate.

The Latin Business Chronical reports that wage hikes smacked of socialism and resulted in the loss of 150,000 jobs.

[Zeyala] in December to raise the minimum wage by 60 percent despite that unions had demanded 20 to 30 percent and employers had countered with zero to 10 percent.

Not only did he exceed the union demands, but also imposed the new laws as companies already had their 2009 budgets ready, Foglia Sandoval points out. As a results some 150,000 jobs were lost during the past six months, she says.

Another concern was his talk about implementing socialism of the 21^st century, modeled on Venezuela. “People associate socialism with ration cards, with lines, with the things we do not want,” Foglia Sandoval says. “It’s a poor country, but we don’t have rationing, or lack of mobility, or have to ask permission for moving.” Further issues raised by the business community is the lack of security, which Sandoval said Zelaya completely ignored. Drug trafficking is growing and people fear for their personal safety. Foreign investment has diminished, and Zelaya's treatment of foreign oil companies was considered "hostile."

In January 2007, Zelaya announced plans to temporarily assume control of oil terminals and restrict imports of oil to one company in an effort to reduce fuel prices. However, after the US Embassy in Honduras warned that the takeover would have serious consequences, the government reversed its position on the terminals.

Fogliz Sandoval said relations with the U.S. were "worsening."

The people of Honduras are standing to protect their Constitution. This is a hallelujah moment for Democracy.

President Obama has said that the ouster of Manuel Zelaya was "not legal." Obama has said the U.S. will "stand on the side of democracy." He has said nothing about the legality of Zelaya subverting the Honduran Constitution. That is the issue. If a democratic election is held, and then the one democratically elected attempts to take over the government illegally - then why are we not talking about that?

Rudi Stettner at Rant Rave looked at the differences in Obama's handling of the Iranian election and the Honduran succession and summed it up this way:

One thing that was established in the Honduran coup. When there is a "progressive" consensus, Obama will quickly find his voice. Since Islamic radicals are the fascists that liberals love, a blind eye will be turned to their sins.

EPA Hushes Dissent: Inconvenient Truths

By Maggie at Maggie Thornton

Repeated lies from a Government to the people is usually the strategy of a third-world country or a dictatorship, but we find it happening in the United States every day. These are big lies, important lies, lies that affect the future of all of us...the future of our children and grandchildren and their children. Just as the media has refused to do much reporting on the Cap and Trade Bill, they also will not tell you of the lies leading up to the vote on the Waxman-Markey Bill. In this case, the EPA silenced and suppressed opposition, and blatantly lied. See a video below.

EPA

Here's the opening of an Investor's Business Daily editorial from Friday, June 26th, 2009 - the day of the House vote:

Climate Change: A suppressed EPA study says old U.N. data ignore the decline in global temperatures and other inconvenient truths. Was the report kept under wraps to influence the vote on the cap-and-trade bill?

The Competitive Enterprise Institute released a study that they say was "suppressed" by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The report says that the United Nations uses "outdated research" on climate change and "ignores the latest scientific findings." From the report:

Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

As Obama and Pelosi have shoved this legislation down our collective throats, many Americans are gullible enough to think this legislation takes us to nirvana. Many are dreaming of working among the "green" jobs that will save America. Wake up America. Those dreams you are dreaming of, will turn into nightmares.

Little evidence? Outdated U.N. research? No reason to rush? This is not what the Obama administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were telling us when they were rushing to force a Friday vote on Waxman-Markey. We were given the impression that unless we passed this cap-and-tax fiasco, polar bears would be extinct by the Fourth of July.

Internal EPA emails show that the Agency knows and understands that their data is wrong, and those emails also show that they were intentionally suppressed. This is the people's EPA. Wake up America. Do you get your news from David Letterman?

The report was the product of Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE). He's been with the EPA for 38 years but now has been taken off all climate-related work. He is convinced that actual climate observations do not match climate change theories and that only the politics, not the science, has been settled.

One of the e-mails unearthed by CEI was dated March 12, from Al McGartland, office director at NCEE, forbidding Carlin from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues such as those in his suppressed report.

All this is particularly interesting because of the charges by Al Gore, NASA's James Hansen and others that the Bush administration and energy companies actively suppressed the truth about climate change.

Carlin was told March 17: "The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

In other words, the administration and Congress had their collective minds made up and didn't want to be confused with the facts. They certainly didn't want any inconvenient truths coming out of their own Environmental Protection Agency, the one that wants to regulate everything from your lawn mower to bovine emissions and which says the product of your respiration and ours, carbon dioxide, is a dangerous pollutant and not the basis for all life on earth.

Thank you to Investor's Business Daily for making this information available. I hope you will read the entire editorial. Thank you to Senator Jim Inhofe who has led the way to understanding the deception behind global warming/climate change. This video is a bit long, but it's full of useful information.

Related:
Media Ignore EPA Suppressing Skeptical Global Warming Report


California Zoning Laws Coming to Your Neighborhood, In Any State - Courtesy Cap and Trade




Senator Jim Inhofe

Iran: Liberal Thought, Liberal Democracy Ends

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the June 12th elections were "the end of liberal democracy and liberal thoughts."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

In other words, the next time "Western states" meddle in Iran's affairs, the President has a plan.

President Ahmadinejad said, “From now on, we will bring you to justice at any international meeting.”

He excoriates the West and cannot understand how the U.S., Germany, France and the U.K. can talk about human rights when our own hands are "stained with the blood of innocent people," and then there's our rotten and satanic attempts to "damage Iran's Islamic system...."

Ahmadinejad had something to say about Obama's outreach to Iran - you remember that offer to "talk." After Obama's comments during the Iranian street protests, Ahmadinejad said the U.S. didn't follow "international rules and norms," and besides that, we were just downright "impolite." He advises us to "correct" our "behavior."

You can read the article here or here at Judeopundit who also has some commentary worth reading.

North Korean Ship Goes Free: US Won't Inspect -- A Response from Radarsite

I have asked Maggie Thornton to cross post the article below to Radarsite because I feel that is important. It is important for us to see what lengths our Chamberlainesque government will go to to avoid any confrontation whatsoever with our avowed enemies. The excuse, as usual, is that we cannot be seen to be acting unilaterally -- so therefore we will not act at all.

There are times in the life of a nation when words just aren't enough. When action, and only action will suffice. This is one of those times. And the whole world is watching us as we disgrace ourselves and bow down before the bully. How on earth are we ever going to contain the escalating threats of proliferation if we are on record for being unwilling to put our lives on the line, and to back up our words with our actions?

Has our once-proud State Department merely become an extension of the corrupt UN, is our Defense Department seemingly at the beck and call of a cowardly pacifist president. For the sake of some pie-in-the-sky concept of Universalism have we bartered away our national identity?

The only military response we have given to North Korean aggressions so far is purely defensive: If you attack us we can shoot down your missiles. Is this a cogent deterrent to a determined enemy? No wonder our great nation is viewed by our adversaries with nothing but well-deserved contempt.

Cowardice must support itself with rationalizations; bravery needs no rationalizations. The road we have chosen is the road of the coward. And I am ashamed. - rg

North Korean Ship Goes Free: U.S. Won't Inspect

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

Any U.S. credence given to the authority of the United Nations is not only laughable but dangerous. With all the bluster about U.N. resolutions keeping North Korean ships from delivering nuclear materials on either end - either to another rogue country from North Korea or bringing such materials into North Korea, was just so much talk, and of course, most of us saw the U.N. resolution for what it was...worthless.

North Korea Protests U.S.

The Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy said "that Washington has ruled out use of military force to inspect the North Korean freighter." It is understandable that the U.S. and other free world countries have their hands tied by the ruse of a impotent resolution. What is not understandable is the weak statements released by our Defense Department. I would rather hear nothing than hear this garbage:

The U.N. resolution lays out a regime that has a very clear set of steps," Ms. Flournoy said, according to the Yonhap news agency. "I want to be very clear. ... This is not a resolution that sponsors, that authorizes use of force for interdiction."

Ms. Flournoy said the U.S. still has "incentives and disincentives that will get North Korea to change course."

"Everything remains on the table, but we're focused on implementing the resolution fully, responsibly and with our international partners," she said.

Some 100,000 North Koreans reportedly gathered and threatened the U.S. with "a fire shower of nuclear retaliation" and shouts of "Let's crush them." Our Navy has been shadowing a North Korean ship and wasting manpower and fuel for what? The Kang Nam I is on it's way to Myanmar, and there is speculation about what is aboard: are there nuclear materials aboard, as they know the Kang Nam I has carried in the past - and carried directly to Myanmar? Who knows. Officials are "guessing." Maybe artillery...may other "conventional weaponry." Maybe "missiles." We pay the Defense and State Departments to do what you and I would and could do, for free - come up with answers to thwart the North Korean menace to the world, and our solutions would have nothing to do with the U.N.

Our Defense Department and State Department should be leading the way...berating the United Nations for it uselessness, for its ongoing work to promote dictators and lawless countries. Freedom comes at a price and the price should be the demise of the U.N.

Sderot: Iran and A Cinemateque

by Findalis



Just 2 separate articles on the occurring violence that is happening in Sderot from Gaza:

Iran too close for Israel's Comfort

by Noam Bedein

While the world follows Iranian developments from the grandstands of YouTube, the people of southern Israel have had front row seats for some time now.

When Iran's protege, Hamas, staged a coup in Gaza that placed 1.4 million Palestinians under 'Hamastan' military rule, no one thought of how southern Israelis would be affected. Located less than one mile away from Sderot, Gaza's dramatic developments would come to affect everyone in the region.

Before Israel disengaged the Jewish communities from Gaza in August 2005, the Palestinian Authority had promised vast properties of some of these communities to Hamas. Four months later, in January 2006, Hamas won a stunning victory in the Palestinian Authority legislative elections, which resulted in the Mecca Accord of March 2007, which obligated the PA to share all foreign assistance with the Hamas organization.

All this placed Hamas in a strategic position from where it could launch attacks on Israel, even before the Hamas military coup.

Iranian Hamas terror tactics have dominated the lives of the people of Sderot. A town battered by sustained attacks for eight years, Sderot has become the only city to remain under continuous siege in the 21st century.

Sderot woman overlooks her home, damaged in a Qassam attack during the recent Gaza war.

Photo: Noam Bedein

In 2008 alone, the Hamas-controlled Gaza regime fired over 3,300 rockets, mortars and Grads towards the Western Negev and southern Israel, 50 percent more than the previous year.

Five months after Operation Cast Lead, Hamas has fired over 215 rockets during the Hamas-Israel 'ceasefire.' Is anyone even keeping track of the number of failed ceasefires that Israel has held with Hamas in the past two years?

For Sderot residents, the knowledge that this has been Israel's third failed ceasefire with Hamas is not surprising.

In a June 17 appearance at the Knesset, Israel Security Agency director Yuval Diskin warned that "Hamas is continuing to increase its strength, manufacture longer-range rockets and smuggle rockets of a far superior quality,". In that light,every citizen of southern Israel knows that a massive escalation is around the corner, which will force more than one million Israelis in southern Israel into the seeming safety of protected rooms and bomb shelters.

Shoshana Swissa, a kindergarten teacher in Sderot recently told Sderot Media Center that ”Even today, in these relatively quiet days in Sderot, every single morning we exercise a drill for the 3-year-old children in our kindergarten. The staff teaches them how to run in 15 seconds towards the safe room when the Color Red alert siren sounds. ”

Turning the Gaza Strip into an Iranian military buffer zone

During Israel's second ‘ceasefire’ with Hamas, between June 2008- December 2008, Hamas did not waste any time building up its military capabilities. Israeli intelligence sources confirm that Hamas dug between 400 and 600 smuggling tunnels that connected Sinai and Gaza in order to “import” guns, missiles, explosives, money,and terrorists, along with oil, fuel, metal, cloths, electronics and even a lion for Gazan's zoo - earning the Hamas regime between 30-50 million dollars a month from the digging of the tunnels and the goods smuggled through.

The Iranian influence and involvement with the Gaza Strip peaked during the summer of 2008, when hundreds of Iranian missiles were smuggled in, to be fired massively only a few months later at southern Israelis during Israel's last military operation in Gaza.

Meanwhile, the Hamas regime trained tens of thousands of children and woman in Gaza during summer 2008, in anticipation of an Israeli counterattack to the Hamas reign of missiles.

Accepting Iran, accepting Hamas

Hamas today has become more acceptable as a resistance organization among political sectors worldwide. The most recent acceptance overture was made by the former US president Jimmy Carter, who visited Gaza this June and asked the European Union to take Hamas off the charts as a terrorist organization.

It should come as no surprise that a terrorist organization like Hamas, which has killed and wounded thousands of Israeli by suicide bombings and rocket fire, is now accepted as a legitmate governing body. If Iranian President, Ahmedinejad is invited to open a UN Conference on Human Rights and is then invited to meet with the Swiss President, then Western embrace of Hamas is just around the corner.

In the meantime, Sderot and southern Israel can only gear up for another round of rocket fire in the near future.

If Iranians really want to know where all their money from the sale of oil is going to they only have to look at 3 places: Their nuclear program which IS attempting to build an Nuclear bomb, Hamas and Hezbollah. With poverty in their own land, food prices soaring and violent crackdown on dissent, Iran is more concerned with providing weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah, then anything else. If you ever wondered where the Kassams that Hamas still fires into Sderot and the rest of Israel come from, look no further than Iran.

Bringing Israeli and Arab Worlds Together at the Sderot Cinemateque

by Anav Silverman

In a region where rockets have hammered civilian residents for the past eight years, the local Sderot Cinemateque remains a popular pastime for residents looking to enjoy a film. As the only rocket-proof cinema in Israel, the Sderot Cinemateque was built eight years ago, right around the time when the first Qassam slammed into Sderot.

The rocket-proof cinema allows local residents to enjoy a film uninterrupted when the rocket alarm, or Tzeva Adom sounds to warn residents of impending Qassams from Gaza. It remains a popular hangout regardless of rocket fire.

A week ago, I had the opportunity to watch a film at the Cinemateque during the eighth annual Cinema South Festival which was held from June 7-12. The festival features the films of graduate students studying in the Department of Film & TV at the local Sapir College. The festival also screened Israeli films that were awarded top prizes abroad as well as international films from Mexico, Hong Kong, and France.

International festival guests included filmmakers Carlos Reygadas from Mexico, Thierry Michel from Belgium, Osvalde Lewat-Hallade of Cameroon and Abi Feijo from Portugal among many others.

I had the opportunity to watch Ajami, one of the featured films of the festival,along with the hundreds of other area residents and international guests. Ajami, named after the largest Arab neighborhood in Jaffa, was co-directed by Israeli Yaron Shani and Jaffa-born Arab, Scandar Copti. The film tells the story of two Muslim Arab brothers and is set against the background of a revenge murder, gangs, Bedouin revenge squads, a Christian Arab godfather and Israeli police.

Ajami was filmed in Arabic -and most of the actors were from the Ajami neighborhood. The mostly Israeli audience at the Sderot cinemateque, myself included, followed along by reading the Hebrew subtitles below.

The film has won international acclaim and was shown in France’s prestigious Cannes Film Festival this past May.

In an interview with the New York Times, the directors of the film, Copti and Shani described their relationship outside of directing of the film, to which both wrote the script. When Shani’s city, Ashdod, was targeted by Gaza rockets in the recent war, Copti called him and said “Take your daughter and your wife and leave.” According to the NYT article, Shani does the same for Copti. Both the directors and the cast where present at the screening in Sderot.

There was something quite unique about watching Ajami in an Israeli rocket-proof theater on the Gaza border. In area that has been devastated by rockets and trauma, it is cultural events like the Cinema South Festival which brings hope for a normal reality that citizens on both sides of the Gaza border continue to seek.

Strange that a movie theater has to be bomb-proof, isn't it? But that is the reality of life in Sderot. Sderot is a small town that has faced the brunt of rocket attacks for 9 years now. Israel was guaranteed that if they "ethnically cleansed" Gaza of all Jews the rockets attacks would cease. The Israelis did just that in 2005, and the attacks got worse.

Now President Obama is singing the same song: "If you "ethically clean" Judea and Sameria of all Jews, there will be peace!"

Right, and I have a bridge in Brooklyn for those who believe this lie to buy.

Unless the PA is willing to be demilitarilized, there can never be peace. Strange as that sounds, it is not Israel who is anti-peace (regardless of what the Useful Idiots of Free Gaza keep saying), but it is the thugs and murderers of Hamas and the PA who will never accept a Jewish nation, never accept Israel and never stop their attacks.

Yet the world loves Hamas. It cries make peace with Hamas. How can one make peace with them when they have openly stated that their goal is the total destruction of Israel and the death to all Jews world-wide?

Again I ask you, my reader to pray for the people of Sderot, to pray for an permanent end to the rocket attacks, and if you are able to, to donate a few coins to the Sderot Media Center. They do such good work in the city of Sderot. Just click here and follow the instructions. All the funds collected go directly to helping the people of Sderot.

Pulling Out of Iraq: An Exchange of Thoughts

A note from Radarsite: While browsing through my documents file this afternoon I came across this forgotten exchange between myself and another commenter, Ms. Jennifer Solis, from the comments section of one of Dr. Daniel Pipes excellent articles, dated July 2007, "Salvaging the Iraq War". In the article Dr. Pipes puts forward his argument for keeping our troops in Iraq. In support of this view he lists the following reasons:
* Contain or rollback the Iranian and Syrian governments.
* Assure the free flow of oil and gas.
* Fight Al-Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.
* Provide a benign presence in Iraq.

Considering the approaching deadline for a complete withdrawal of all of our combat troops in Iraq, and the escalating threats we now face from our emboldened Islamic enemies in Iran and Afghanistan, from the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hezbolla, and Hamas, I feel that this discussion of the issues involved is perhaps even more pertinent today than it was in 2007. I hope that you agree. - rg

----------------------------------------------------

The Battle of Iraq and the Clash of Civilizations
Reader comment on article: Salvaging the Iraq War
Submitted by Roger W. Gardner (United States), Jul 29, 2007 at 16:31

What I am about to say is certain to offend a lot of people, but I'm going to say it anyway. Whether we stay in or Iraq or leave, the war that we have had thrust upon us will continue. For it is not just about Iraq, or Afghanistan, it is not just about al Qaeda. Iraq is just one of the battles in this war. This war is not about what we have done or haven't done in the Middle East.

This war we are in is a war against the hate-driven, pride/revenge culture of the Arab world (in which I include Iran) and the violence-prone religion which supports it. This is just the latest attempt of the Arab-Muslim world to fulfill their God-given destiny to conquer the West. Since the seventh century there have been at least a half dozen of these major attacks against the Judeo-Christian West -- some of which came perilously close to succeeding.

Fortunately, their invasions were thwarted and they were driven back across the Mediterranean, where they licked their wounds and plotted revenge and withdrew further into barbarism. Until this backward and hateful culture is thoroughly destroyed or utterly dominated -- as the last vestiges of the brutal warrior code of the Samurai had to be totally destroyed in WWII -- this never-ending war will continue. If there is nothing else that we have learned from our past conflicts with the Arab world, we can be certain of this -- they hate us, they hate our freedoms and they hate our success and they will never give up their attempts to conquer us.

For most Westerners, certainly for most Americans, it is so much easier to believe that what we are dealing with here is a small group of violent fanatics who have "hijacked" a peaceful religion -- like the Nazis "hijacked" Germany -- rather than having to contemplate the awful alternative: that a major world religion could, itself, be violent and that we are, indeed, in the first days of an inevitable and bloody "Clash of Civilizations." I truly wish that it were otherwise, but wishing won't make it so.

ingredient for lasting peace in Iraq
Reader comment on article: Salvaging the Iraq War
Submitted by jennifer solis (United States), Aug 22, 2007 at 14:58

Interesting suggestion to remove to the deserts and borders. I agree; however there's an imperative ingredient I wish Mr. Pipes would comment on; the inevitable civil war and resulting decimation of citizenry. All we're doing now is postponing what is in my estimation (however politically incorrect for me to articulate) the sad but obvious ingredient for a lasting peace in Iraq. Massive decimation.

After the Gulf war, how did Saddam manage to stop the Kurdish uprising? There was lasting peace afterwards; the Sunnis, Shi'te and Kurds knew, respected, feared the "strong horse" after that. He knew the mentality and culture of Irac citizenry better than we do (or admit we do). How did World War II end? We did not fight that war and succeed by having a "politically correct" mentality. We had a P.C. attitude in Viet Nam and we lost. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the fall of Berlin.......we won.

President Bush is right when he (all too infrequently) says we must stay on the offensive. Wars are won by offensive action, not defensive action. However, the ingrained cultural desire for Theocratical rule (inspite of the 'elections') on the part of the Irac populace has/ will trap them; they are the ones in a "quagmire". Sadly, to the Iracs fear and respect are synonomous; this applies towards whomever eventually brings peace to that country. -JS

Reply to Ms. Solis' comments
Reader comment on article: Salvaging the Iraq War
in response to reader comment: ingredient for lasting peace in Iraq
Submitted by Roger W. Gardner (United States), Aug 22, 2007 at 21:34

Sadly, I find myself in almost total agreement with Ms. Solis' thoughtful and straightfoward comments. We are in a real war and, as she pointed out so well, half-measures just won't do. Culture does matter. And the culture in most of the Middle East isn't quite the same as the culture in Sweden. I remember, back when our troops first entered the city of Baghdad, one of our embedded reporters was interviewing some of the Iraqis on the street, who were dancing and rejoicing over the apparent fall of Saddam Hussein. One of these excited Iraqis spoke English, and when the reporter asked him how he felt about those people who supported Saddam, he answered, "If I catch one I'll slit his throat and drink his blood!" And I remember thinking --Jeez! And this is one of the good guys!

Yes, they actually might continue"decimating each other" and , yes, there might be a civil war. And finally, you're absolutely right about some people seeming to need strong dictators, even if they're brutal and muderous -- some Russians still look back lovingly to the good old days, when their kindly Uncle Joe was in charge.

Yet despite all of these ominous -- indeed, sometimes seemingly inevitable -- scenarios, we still have to stay there and win. Why? Because all of the senior Al-Qaeda leaders have said that the battle for Iraq is absolutely central to their plans to eventually take control of the entire region and turn it into their long-awaited Caliphate. Like it or not, this is the center of focus for our war against Al-Qaeda. We just cannot allow Iraq to turn into another Taliban-like theocracy. We cannot allow Al-Qaeda to win.

Again, I agree with almost everything the observant Ms. Solis has said; but I respectfully disagree with her conclusion.

knowledge vs. opinion
Reader comment on article: Salvaging the Iraq War
in response to reader comment: Reply to Ms. Solis' comments
Submitted by jennifer Solis (United States), Aug 23, 2007 at 18:54

How much does the average American know about the religion of Islam?

Do they know that the Qu'ran is the Islamic "bible"? That Islam is the world's second largest religion? That in the Qu'ran the most assured way of going to "heaven" is to kill a Christian or a Jew? That in the Qu'ran you're commanded to lie? That in the Qu'ran you're instructed to "kill the infidel (anyone not of Islamic faith) wherever you find him"? All this is permitted in "times of jihad" (translated "my struggle, my fight". Ominously, the title of Hitler's book, "mien Kaumpf ", translates the same.).

Since 632 AD, the Qu'ran has been the Muslim's bible. There is no other. I appreciate Mr. Gardner's views in "The Battle of Iraq and the Clash of Civilizations". The truth is sad but the truth is this: a religion, second largest in the world, outrageously and graphically violent since it's inception, was sleeping for a couple of centuries; now, since Munich, it's raised it's ugly head.......Americans know about 9-11. Do they realize the vast majority of "peaceful" Muslims turn a blind eye toward their Muslim brothers planning "jihad"?

I agree that Iraq is the main Theater in the war. Strategically we would be fools to give it up. But trying to introduce a Democracy to a culture that is blind, has been blind for over a thousand years due to a dictatorial, violent religion is truly folly. Muslims born in Afganistan who realize this have left; Muslims born in Irac who realize this have left. Recently the "President" of Iraq and his cabinet announced their intention of going on a three-month vacation. Of course the American advisors quickly "hushed" that idea..........I had a hunch when I heard it that the new heads of the government of Iraq wanted to "get the hell out of dodge" while they could.

I found Mr.Gardner's letter to be observant -- "until this hateful and backward culture is thoughly destroyed or utterly dominated........" Question: how will this culture be dominated? What kind of domination has brought a period of peace to the Middle East before? Therein lies the answer. Removing our troops to the deserts and borders as Mr.Pipes suggests will force the Iraqis to step up. Force is something that is in the Iraqi's mental vocabulary. Whomever rises to power in Iraq, if he doesn't cooperate with American forces, blow him up. Really. Then whomever rises again to power, again, if he does'nt cooperate with American forces, blow him up. The Iraqis aren't mentally retarded; soon they'll catch on that they're being FORCED to cooperate with American forces. Let them have a "Theocracy". And, once again, let us be the "strong horse" in the war. -JS

Note: since the Kurds are the only ones who have proven the ability to self-govern, I would remove our forces also to the north to provide extra protection for the Kurds.

Response to Ms. Solis' comments
Reader comment on article: Salvaging the Iraq War
in response to reader comment: knowledge vs. opinion
Submitted by Roger W. Gardner (United States), Aug 24, 2007 at 17:31

Once again, I must respond to the knowledgable Ms.Solis' well-reasoned statements. I think that she might agree that sometimes -- like in 1941 -- war is the answer, the only answer that will do. And I agree that a strong hand will most likely be necessary for some time to come.

I hold no illusions concerning the difficulties we face in Iraq, and with this whole violent culture; however, if it is any solace to Ms. Solis (no puns intended), when, after Japan's unconditional surrender, we occupied the country and declared our intentions to bring about a democracy there, the wise men here and elsewhere hastened to point out -- quite reasonably -- that for us to attempt to change an alien culture, that had been more or less unchanged in thousands of years, a culture based on a foreign religion and on a national creed of the warrior and centuries of Emperor Worship, was both arrogant and foolhardy, and almost assuredly impossible.

It took about 5 years.

Before the pundits had time to write many books on this subject, Japan already had major league baseball and was quickly beginning to outdistance some of the Western democracies in performing those miracles of capitalism. All this, without losing their essential unique Japanese culture. The same thing happened in South Korea. And the entire Soviet Union fell apart before the CIA had had time for their morning coffee.

Once again, I don't underestimate the difficulties we face, and are going to face in the future in the Middle East and elsewhere. But as the previously examples have proven, there's always room for hope.

On a more personal note, it's been a pleasure talking with you.

And it's also been a pleasure following all of the other thoughtful comments on this subject.

RWG

unconditional surrender
Reader comment on article: Salvaging the Iraq War
in response to reader comment: Response to Ms. Solis' comments
Submitted by jennifer solis (United States), Aug 24, 2007 at 18:53

I thank Mr. Gardner for his response and thoughtfull, "dealing with the reality" commentary. The illustration of the situation of Japan, after WW II, is an interesting one. I'd like to ask Mr. Gardner to comment, however, on these points:

There was one confirmed leader of Japan; the United States had one Leader with whom to sign the treaty, and to whom the Japanese populace would in it's entirety acknowledge. Sure, at the time we didn't know for sure what the citizenry would do. But there was the track record of the Japanes' extreme loyalty toward ONE leader (Saddam never had the loyalty of all three tribes).

The Japanese fought wearing uniforms. How can you fight (in Iraq) an invisible army?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki................what an attention getter / way to gain respect (fear).

The Japanese unconditionally surrendered. Turns out that they did. Turning out not the same in Iraq.

Last, but not least, Japan's religion was not the second biggest in the world, their soldiers where not funded by an eternal flow of oil money, and we showed no mercy in this country by having internment camps on our home soil. Not that I desire internment camps for Muslims. There was, I believe, a "tougher mettle" attitude of Americans back then (they lined up around the block to enlist).

What are your thoughts, Mr. Gardner? -JS

Reply to Ms. Solis' comments
Reader comment on article: Salvaging the Iraq War
in response to reader comment: unconditional surrender
Submitted by Roger W. Gardner (United States), Aug 26, 2007 at 18:48

Dear Ms. Solis,

As usual, your comments are right on target. Ironically, although I keep agreeing with you, the disagreement seems to continue. As much as I enjoy this ongoing debate, I'm afraid I' m going to have to bow out at this point. Not because I think this discussion isn't an important one, or that I think your ideas aren't sound -- they are -- but I'm just beginning to wonder if this is the proper place to keep this dialogue going.

However, because of the respectful and serious manner in which you've framed your last questions, I'm not going to just disappear without at least attempting to answer them to the best of my ability.

One of the additional reasons I feel that it's probably a good idea for me to leave this particular discussion at this point is that I feel that -- as interesting as it has become -- it has strayed a little too far from my original intent in posting that first "Battle of Iraq ---" comment. If you recall, far from attempting to minimize the problems we are facing in this volatile region, I was attempting to prove that they were in fact much bigger and more ominous than some people seemed to believe; that, rather than being a comparatively smallish war confined to one relatively small country, it was, in my view, just one battle in a much larger and more dangerous looming worldwide conflict.

Yes, as you point out so clearly, there are many differences between what is currently going on in Iraq and what previously happened in Japan and South Korea. And yes, there are of course further differences between what happened in these two countries after WWII and what transpired with the sudden fall of the Soviet Union in 1989. My purpose in siting these examples was not to presume that what happened in these countries could , or ever would, happen the same way in Iraq, but to show that, what appears at first sight to be absolutely insurmountable problems, sometimes turn out to be otherwise. This thought gives me cause for a little optimism.

If you will recall my previous remarks about the violent culture of the Middle East, in general, and Iraq, in particular, I have no illusions about the grave difficuties we face there in the future. Indeed, it may be necessary for us to maintain a strong military presence in this area for 50 years or more.

I completely agree with your assessment of the need for a powerful and intimidating force there to accomplish our long term goals. In order to do this, however, I believe we need two things -- both of which seem to be in dangerously short supply right now -- manpower and willpower. Hopefully, in the future we can correct these shortfalls.

Once again, Ms. Solis, I've thoroughly enjoyed this discussion and hope to continue it somewhere else at a later time.

Best wishes,

Roger G.

the pleasure is mine
Reader comment on article: Salvaging the Iraq War
in response to reader comment: Reply to Ms. Solis' comments
Submitted by jennifer solis (United States), Aug 28, 2007 at 15:28

Dear Mr. Gardner,

Thank you for your reply. That you replied at all to my somewhat acerbic letter is testimony that you're a gentleman and also to your genuine interest and concern reguarding Iraq.

Thank you for pointing out also that what appears to be at first " absolutely insurmountable problems" sometimes turn out to be otherwise. Correcting the seemingly dangerous short supply of manpower and willpower. I couldn't agree with you more, Mr. Gardner.

I will look forward to any other possible replies of yours towards Mr. Pipes' articles, etc. I too have very much enjoyed the back-and- forth..................very respectfully, -JS