Ignore this man. I'm not psychiratrist, but he may be insane. It's scary to think that he was once a part of the US government, the Attorney General, no less. While USAG, he supported Salvadore Allende, in Chile, whose goon squads tortured and killed not only Chilean citizens, but foreign nationals. He has supported Castro, Malosovich, Sukarno, and Kim Jong Il in their reigns of terror. His agenda seems to be that all peoples of the world deserve to live in tyranny.
It is understandable that he is one of Saddam's defense attorneys. He is after all, a lawyer, and lawyers have to go wherever they have an opportunity to make money. He just wants a piece of Saddam's "Oil for food" pie. But, while Israel, which has never initiated force against another country, except in defense, suffers through hundreds of acts of terrorism on a daily basis, Clark is justifying Hezbollah in "protecting the people of Lebanon from the terrorism of Israel. He feels that President Bush should be impeached for support Israel, because Israel is a criminal nation, in his view. One should wonder whom Clark would have in Bush's place.Probably not anyone we would recognize as the leader of a democracy, considering his track record. Ignore him he's insane.
Follow this link to read the story.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Monday, July 31, 2006
Hezbollah winning PR War
There are rules of war, and Hezbollah has broken most of them, to their advantage. They initiated the war by crossing the Israeli border, killing eight soldiers, kidnapping two, and firing Katyusha rockets across the border. Katyusha rockets are not a military weapon; they are unguided, and fall indisciminately among the civilian population, killing Israeli Jews and Arabs alike. These rockets are fired from locations populated by civilians--we have seen videos of rockets being fired from within the cities and villages. These attacks have resulted in the nearly complete evacuation of the northern cities of Israel and 1.5 million Isrealis living in bomb shelters. Hezbollah's tactics were planned to ensure that when Israel retaliated, the colateral casualties among the Lebanese civilians would be high.
Hezbollah rejoices at every civilian death at the hands of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). They know that Israel views colateral casualties in her endeavors as failure. Both sides know that the civilian casualties can be used by Hezbollah to demonize Israel as an adominable aggressor. It is Hezbollah, not Israel which holds the civilians of Lebanon hostage. By providing relief to those victims of war, Hezbollah can then be seen as the benevolent humanitarians in the war, and will not be seen by the Lebanese as the terrorists they are.
This is how the terrorists win. They know that Israel will be forced by international pressure to stop their military operations against Hezbollah, while they will be able to continue aggression against Israel. They know that, because of the tragic bombing of civilians in Qana, Lebanon, that the world press will see Israel as the aggressor, even though, since 1948, Israel has never initiated force against any other nation or people. Coupled with life-long indoctrination in schools and press--the general populations of the Middle East have been taught by dictators and terror organizations that Israel is evil--the Lebanese now see the high casualty numbers among their population as proof that the existance of Israel is a threat to their own lives.
Now, it isn't only the Arabian and Muslim Lebanese who are against Israel. Samarians, Armenians, and Assyrians, mostly Christian, have joined in the protests and demonstrations against Israel, and have expressed support for the very organization which is responsible for their deaths. Hezbollah knows that its tactics result in universal moral outrage against Israel. In this manner, Hezbollah has achieved victory.
Hezbollah rejoices at every civilian death at the hands of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). They know that Israel views colateral casualties in her endeavors as failure. Both sides know that the civilian casualties can be used by Hezbollah to demonize Israel as an adominable aggressor. It is Hezbollah, not Israel which holds the civilians of Lebanon hostage. By providing relief to those victims of war, Hezbollah can then be seen as the benevolent humanitarians in the war, and will not be seen by the Lebanese as the terrorists they are.
This is how the terrorists win. They know that Israel will be forced by international pressure to stop their military operations against Hezbollah, while they will be able to continue aggression against Israel. They know that, because of the tragic bombing of civilians in Qana, Lebanon, that the world press will see Israel as the aggressor, even though, since 1948, Israel has never initiated force against any other nation or people. Coupled with life-long indoctrination in schools and press--the general populations of the Middle East have been taught by dictators and terror organizations that Israel is evil--the Lebanese now see the high casualty numbers among their population as proof that the existance of Israel is a threat to their own lives.
Now, it isn't only the Arabian and Muslim Lebanese who are against Israel. Samarians, Armenians, and Assyrians, mostly Christian, have joined in the protests and demonstrations against Israel, and have expressed support for the very organization which is responsible for their deaths. Hezbollah knows that its tactics result in universal moral outrage against Israel. In this manner, Hezbollah has achieved victory.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
History Just Goes On Repeating
In spite of what the media has reported, the current conflicts between Hamas and Israel, and Hezbollah and Israel, is nothing more nor less than history repeating itself. Every time Israel makes concessions, ie. pulling out of Lebanon, evacuating the Gaza and West Bank settlements, giving the Palestinian Authority a free bank account, the favor is returned with more aggression, and more demands from those who wish to see the tiny nation wiped off the map. Every yard of buffer zone Israel concedes is a yard further into Israel terrorists can fire morters and rockets. It is further proof that terrorists cannot be negotiated with. Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet refusnik and leader of Israel's Yisrael Ba'alyah party drives this point graphically home in his book The Case For Democracy, published in 2004. A long time advocate for democracy, having spent nine years as a political prisoner in the Soviet Union, he takes the stand that concessions should only be given to a fear society government if that government gives more freedom to its own people. Otherwise, the tyranny will only be be strengthened and legitimized, increasing the abuse of its own population and its percieved external enemies. This goes against the prevelent attitude toward terrorists and tyrants--that if you give them what they want, they might leave you alone.
As Sharansky points out, beginning in the chapter titled "From Helsinki to Oslo," this aproach is wrong, and has been proven wrong time and time again. Concessions to the Palestinian Authority, for example, has never resulted in peace, neither for the Israelis nor the Palestinians. In 2001, in The Wall Street Journal he wrote an editorial, explaining his disagreement with the general consensus and his resignation from then Prime Minister Ehud Barak's coalition government. Sharansky wrote:
There have been "free" elections for the Palestinians, since that was written, but, as Sharansky points out many times in his book, free elections do not necessarily mean a free society. A free society must include, he writes, "The structural elements that enable democratic societies to respect human rights--independent courts, the rule of law, a free press, a freely elected government, meaningful opposition parties, (and) human rights organizations."
With Hamas, a terrorist organization with an armed militia, in power, elected as they may be, the other criteria are missing. Hamas in Palestine, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, have no regard for their own people, hiding among the innocent population to initiate their attacks against the citizens of Israel. By inciting violence, and by initiating force against Israel, they put these civilians in the line of fire. They do not represent the people who elected them.
Financial aid given them by other countries, including Israel, is used not for the betterment of the Palestinians, but for the recruitment and training of terrorists, and the procurement of weapons, and the same goes for money given to Hezbollah. This is obviously not the road to peace.
Every free country should immediately stop giving unreciprocated concessions to tyrannies. This type of negotiation only strengthens the regime and increases the threat to that regime's perceived external enemies--often the same "enemies" which have given the financial or economic aid, or made trade or territorial concessions. Any concessions to a fear based government must be tied to human rights, as Sharansky suggests. This policy should apply not only to the Middle East, but to other despotic regimes as well. Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson and President Ronald Reagen both applied this principle to relations with the Soviet Union, and that oppressive regime imploded from within without as shot being fired in warfare. The same principle should be applied--not only by the US, but by the entire free world--to Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Cuba, and any other oppressive regime. Of course this is not a solution to the active fighting now occuring between Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah, but it will eventually bankrupt any attempt to continue aggression. Otherwise, as is happening in the Middle East, history will continue to repeat itself.
As Sharansky concludes:
As Sharansky points out, beginning in the chapter titled "From Helsinki to Oslo," this aproach is wrong, and has been proven wrong time and time again. Concessions to the Palestinian Authority, for example, has never resulted in peace, neither for the Israelis nor the Palestinians. In 2001, in The Wall Street Journal he wrote an editorial, explaining his disagreement with the general consensus and his resignation from then Prime Minister Ehud Barak's coalition government. Sharansky wrote:
"The same human rights principles that once guided me in the Soviet Union remain the cornerstone of my approach to the peace process. I am willing to transfer territory not because I think the Jewish people have less of a claim to Judea and Samaria than do the Palestinians, but because the principles of individual autonomy remain sacred to me--I do not want to rule another people. At the same time, I refuse to ignore the Palestinian Authority's violations of human rights because I remain convinced that a neighbor who tramples the rights of its own people will eventuall threaten the security of my people...A genuinely "new" Middle East need not be a fantasy. But it will not gbe brought about by merely ceding lands to Arab dictators and by subsidizing regimes that undermine the rights of their own people. The only way to create real Arab-Israeli reconcilliation is to press the Arab world to respect human rights. Israel must link its concessions to the degree of openess, tranparency and liberalization of its neighbors. For their part, Western leaders must not think the Arabs any less deserving of the freedom and rights their own citizens enjoy--both for their sake and ours."
There have been "free" elections for the Palestinians, since that was written, but, as Sharansky points out many times in his book, free elections do not necessarily mean a free society. A free society must include, he writes, "The structural elements that enable democratic societies to respect human rights--independent courts, the rule of law, a free press, a freely elected government, meaningful opposition parties, (and) human rights organizations."
With Hamas, a terrorist organization with an armed militia, in power, elected as they may be, the other criteria are missing. Hamas in Palestine, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, have no regard for their own people, hiding among the innocent population to initiate their attacks against the citizens of Israel. By inciting violence, and by initiating force against Israel, they put these civilians in the line of fire. They do not represent the people who elected them.
Financial aid given them by other countries, including Israel, is used not for the betterment of the Palestinians, but for the recruitment and training of terrorists, and the procurement of weapons, and the same goes for money given to Hezbollah. This is obviously not the road to peace.
Every free country should immediately stop giving unreciprocated concessions to tyrannies. This type of negotiation only strengthens the regime and increases the threat to that regime's perceived external enemies--often the same "enemies" which have given the financial or economic aid, or made trade or territorial concessions. Any concessions to a fear based government must be tied to human rights, as Sharansky suggests. This policy should apply not only to the Middle East, but to other despotic regimes as well. Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson and President Ronald Reagen both applied this principle to relations with the Soviet Union, and that oppressive regime imploded from within without as shot being fired in warfare. The same principle should be applied--not only by the US, but by the entire free world--to Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Cuba, and any other oppressive regime. Of course this is not a solution to the active fighting now occuring between Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah, but it will eventually bankrupt any attempt to continue aggression. Otherwise, as is happening in the Middle East, history will continue to repeat itself.
As Sharansky concludes:
"The culture of death and violence that has engulfed Palestinian society can...change quickly. But the change is unlikely to happen on its own, nor will it be the product of an Israeli withdrawal or a phony peace. It will happen when the free world abandons the false assumptions that have guided diplomacy in the region for decades. It will happen when the world's democratic leaders, especially those in the United States and Israel, embrace the principles that President Bush outlined on June 24, 2002, and ensure that those principles shape their policies. Above all, it will happen only when those democratic leaders have faith that freedom has the power to change our world--even when its seeds are planted in the rocky soil of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip."
Friday, July 21, 2006
What Legitimizes Democracy?
Arnaud de Borchgravee, Editor-at-Large for the Washington Times and for UPI, recently wrote an op-ed piece in which he refered to Hezbollah as a legitimate political party in Lebanon. He does have a point, as there are two cabinet ministers in the Lebanese government and 23 seats in the Parliament representing Hezbollah.
My question is, should a political party be armed? Can an armed organization be legitimized as a political party in a democracy? Sin Fenn, the political arm of the Irish Revolutionary Army in Northern Ireland, could not be recognized in the British Parliament, even though it had elected representatives in that body, until the IRA was disarmed. Imagine what it would be like if the two factions of the Demopublican party, in the United States, each had their own militias. Cspan might be more interesting as Senators and Congresspersons engaged in firefights, and attrition would result in a constant introduction of new faces in the legislative branch, but that is not democracy. An armed political wing has the potential to enforce its doctrine at gunpoint.
A graphic example of armed political parties can be seen in the Palestinian government. Hamas and Fatah both have their own militias. When Hamas won the elections and gained the majority of seats in the governing body, there were immediately firefights between the two parties, each trying to force its own doctrine upon the other at gunpoint. In this case, democratic elections did not result in a democracy.
It is not Lebanon, nor is it the Lebanese government which imported tens of thousands of rockets and missiles into the southern part of the country, it was Hezbollah. When Hezbollah began firing rockets across the Israeli border it was not at the will of the government of Lebanon. When Hezbollah militia crossed the Lebanese-Israeli border to kidnap soldiers, that was not in the name of the Lebonese government. If Hezbollah were a legitimate party, they would be acting in the interest of Lebanon, not in the interest of Iran or Syria. If it were a legitimate political party in a democracy, it would not have the arms or the impetus to initiate hostilities with a neighboring country.
The true government of Lebanon was elected by the people of Lebanon, not emplaced by Syria of Hezbollah. If that government is to be considered legitimate, while being inclusive of the Hezbollah Party, Hezbollah must become a true political party, and must disarm and cease hostility toward Isreal.
My question is, should a political party be armed? Can an armed organization be legitimized as a political party in a democracy? Sin Fenn, the political arm of the Irish Revolutionary Army in Northern Ireland, could not be recognized in the British Parliament, even though it had elected representatives in that body, until the IRA was disarmed. Imagine what it would be like if the two factions of the Demopublican party, in the United States, each had their own militias. Cspan might be more interesting as Senators and Congresspersons engaged in firefights, and attrition would result in a constant introduction of new faces in the legislative branch, but that is not democracy. An armed political wing has the potential to enforce its doctrine at gunpoint.
A graphic example of armed political parties can be seen in the Palestinian government. Hamas and Fatah both have their own militias. When Hamas won the elections and gained the majority of seats in the governing body, there were immediately firefights between the two parties, each trying to force its own doctrine upon the other at gunpoint. In this case, democratic elections did not result in a democracy.
It is not Lebanon, nor is it the Lebanese government which imported tens of thousands of rockets and missiles into the southern part of the country, it was Hezbollah. When Hezbollah began firing rockets across the Israeli border it was not at the will of the government of Lebanon. When Hezbollah militia crossed the Lebanese-Israeli border to kidnap soldiers, that was not in the name of the Lebonese government. If Hezbollah were a legitimate party, they would be acting in the interest of Lebanon, not in the interest of Iran or Syria. If it were a legitimate political party in a democracy, it would not have the arms or the impetus to initiate hostilities with a neighboring country.
The true government of Lebanon was elected by the people of Lebanon, not emplaced by Syria of Hezbollah. If that government is to be considered legitimate, while being inclusive of the Hezbollah Party, Hezbollah must become a true political party, and must disarm and cease hostility toward Isreal.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Free Iraqi: I wish it goes on and on.
Many of us express our opinion. Our opinions are based on many factors; our experiences in life, our moral values and our material values to name a few. I would like to direct your attention to the opinion of one who has lived a completely different experience than most Americans have, one who suffered under a tyranny, and was once unable to express his opinion for fear of death. One of his brothers was recently murdered by terrorists. I think the post he wrote, the one I linked to below, will open the eyes of a few people. It is important that this message goes out to everyone.
Free Iraqi: I wish it goes on and on.
Free Iraqi: I wish it goes on and on.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Oregon to Enlist Big Brother
No government currently active in the world will ever say "we are getting enough money from the taxpayers." This fact is being slammed home in the state of Oregon, which is planning on enlisting Big Brother to extort more money from its citizenry.
Citing loss of revenue from fuel taxes--the high price of gas and energy consciousness have resulted in lower fuel sales--the money grubbing bureaucracy in Oregon has proposed taxing its citizens on highway mileage. This would be done by installing tracking devices in privately owned vehicles and using GPS linked computers to keep track of the distance traveled on Oregon's public roads. The government claims that the whereabouts and destinations of the vehicle would not be tracked, but this claim is questionable, as it would require the ability to detect that the cars are within state lines.
It could be argued that this technique could be useful in tracking potential terrorists and drug trafficers, but only vehicles owned by residents and private business would be tracked, so this would not be a very effective tool. It is merely a system from which to get more money.
Anyone not living in a cave is aware that a government contract to repair roads is much more costly than any private construction contract would be, if the roads were privately owned. In a government contract, not only may the contracter claim inflated costs--which may be legitimized by the fact that government contracters are required to pay a higher minimum wage--but those in the government who negotiate the contract and oversee the construction, traffic control, etc, have to get their take in the deal. Such is bureaucracy, which in general has rarely been for the public good. This is why the state of Oregon feels it cannot afford to be energy conscious without additional revenues.
This is indeed counterproductive to the trend to resist high energy costs. American consumers are not rewarded for cutting back on demand, but are further penalized by additional taxes. It is sickening to see what a government will result to for the purposes of extortion.
Citing loss of revenue from fuel taxes--the high price of gas and energy consciousness have resulted in lower fuel sales--the money grubbing bureaucracy in Oregon has proposed taxing its citizens on highway mileage. This would be done by installing tracking devices in privately owned vehicles and using GPS linked computers to keep track of the distance traveled on Oregon's public roads. The government claims that the whereabouts and destinations of the vehicle would not be tracked, but this claim is questionable, as it would require the ability to detect that the cars are within state lines.
It could be argued that this technique could be useful in tracking potential terrorists and drug trafficers, but only vehicles owned by residents and private business would be tracked, so this would not be a very effective tool. It is merely a system from which to get more money.
Anyone not living in a cave is aware that a government contract to repair roads is much more costly than any private construction contract would be, if the roads were privately owned. In a government contract, not only may the contracter claim inflated costs--which may be legitimized by the fact that government contracters are required to pay a higher minimum wage--but those in the government who negotiate the contract and oversee the construction, traffic control, etc, have to get their take in the deal. Such is bureaucracy, which in general has rarely been for the public good. This is why the state of Oregon feels it cannot afford to be energy conscious without additional revenues.
This is indeed counterproductive to the trend to resist high energy costs. American consumers are not rewarded for cutting back on demand, but are further penalized by additional taxes. It is sickening to see what a government will result to for the purposes of extortion.
No to Federal Funding of Private Industry
Once again, Congress is barking up the wrong tree. As I write this, the House of Representatives is debating granting Federal funding to stem cell embryonic research. It is not the moral issue compelling me to rail against this; rather it is the questionable practicality of using public money to fund any scientific research.
Stem cell research is important in advancing medical science, and should not be curtailed by law. However, there are plenty of private organizations and trust funds that can adequately fund this type of research. If such research is in the best interest of pharmaceutical companies, which it would seem to be, the pharmaceutical companies should fund it. American Cancer Society and other organizations collect millions of dollars in private funding which could be used for stem cell research. Insurance companies, which are already heavily subsidized by the government, may also find such interest in the research. The fact is that the pharmaceutical and insurance industries record profit percentages five times that of the oil companies. They do not need the taxpayers' help in increasing their profits by reducing research costs.
Stem cell research is important in advancing medical science, and should not be curtailed by law. However, there are plenty of private organizations and trust funds that can adequately fund this type of research. If such research is in the best interest of pharmaceutical companies, which it would seem to be, the pharmaceutical companies should fund it. American Cancer Society and other organizations collect millions of dollars in private funding which could be used for stem cell research. Insurance companies, which are already heavily subsidized by the government, may also find such interest in the research. The fact is that the pharmaceutical and insurance industries record profit percentages five times that of the oil companies. They do not need the taxpayers' help in increasing their profits by reducing research costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
