Saturday, October 14, 2006
Civil War- by leftists,socialists,islamists
What happens when instead of bats and bottles it reverts to M-4 rifles and AK-47's. What then? The French Police union claimed a few days ago that they are in a state of civil war with the Islamic street thugs. Why do we have to wait for this crap to come down on us in the U.S.?
Yesterday in my county the local paper gave big coverage to the opening of a new Mosque in our midst. The Mosques I saw in Iraq were stockpiling weapons and giving sanctuary to terrorists. How are the Mosques in the U.S. any different? They are safe havens for the Islamic streetfighters but yet our media celebrates opening a new mosque. We don't seem to learn very fast.
Fjordman - this writer is a ledgend.
Recommendations for the West
From another disturbing piece at The Brussels Journal:
Since last Sunday's local elections in Belgium more than one fifth (21.8%) of the municipal councillors in Brussels, the capital of Europe, are immigrants of non-European origin. Most of them are Muslims, and most of them have been elected as Socialists.
The non-European immigrants vote overwhelmingly Socialist, owing to the fact that many of them are rentseekers who migrated to Western Europe attracted by the subsidies of its generous welfare states. The immigrants have become the electoral life insurance of European Socialism.
Europe has used the welfare state to slit one wrist. It has used lax immigration policy to slit the other. Now it is sitting in the bathtub, watching the blood seep out of its body. The European of tomorrow will subsist as a slave whose purpose is to finance festering slums full of indolent Muslim baby machines — until the day comes that Europeans don't exist anymore.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
China & Russia
The destroyer was built in a St. Petersburg shipyard and transferred to the Chinese navy on Sept. 28.
A first ship was transferred to China in late 2005.
The ships are part of a $1.4-billion deal signed in 2002.
U.S.A. also continues the build up with the new cvn 77 nuclear aircraft carrier USS H W Bush.
China and Russia: Kim enablers
by Benjamin Shapiro
Posted: October 11, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
On Monday, North Korea announced its entry into the nuclear club, detonating a nuclear bomb equivalent to 500 to 1,000 tons of TNT, according to French estimates, a fizzled but somewhat successful test. Just a few hours later, China condemned the detonation. And yesterday, China announced that it would oppose any sanctions, let alone a military strike, on North Korea.
"What we should discuss now is not the negative issue of punishment," oiled Liu Jianchao, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Minister. "Instead, the international community and the United Nations should take positive and appropriate measures that will help the process of denuclearization on the Korean peninsula."
Two days before North Korea bombed its way into the news, Russian reporter Anna Politkovskaya was murdered in her apartment. Politkovskaya, a vocal opponent of Russian President Vladimir Putin, was the victim of a contract killing, likely orchestrated by the Russian government. The Russian government remains as committed to dictatorship and repression as it ever has been.
Just after North Korea's bomb test, Russia announced that the bomb had not fizzled, but dazzled, yielding the equivalent of 5,000 to 15,000 tons of TNT, 10 to 30 times larger than the French estimate. Russia also signaled its unwillingness to take any sort of punitive action against North Korea, issuing a statement indicating its "readiness to participate in joint efforts by the interested parties aimed at a peaceful diplomatic resolution of the situation surrounding North Korea."
A Chinese-Russian alliance is forming. The Chinese client state is North Korea; the Russian and Chinese trading partner is Iran. Like China, Russia is a capitalism-utilizing dictatorship with a history of Marxism and a belief in its eventual historical conquest. Like Russia, China is a Machiavellian political actor willing to play both sides of the Islamic-Western conflict against the middle.
China and Russia are the global beneficiaries of the Islamic-Western clash of civilizations. They remain largely outside its purview while benefiting from its externalities. Stalinist Russia and Maoist China began as allies. History has conspired to force them once more into the same bed.
China and Russia are the powers behind the throne in North Korea. China has supported the North Korean nuclear program for years; they provide the vast majority of North Korea's food and fuel. China has defended North Korea for five decades and will not cease to do so now. Four years ago, I warned in this column that Russia was providing North Korea with "sophisticated long-range weaponry, as well as upgrades to its aerospace technology." Now, North Korea may soon have the ability to wed its missile technology to its nuclear technology, placing broad swaths of the continental United States within range of a Kim Jong-Il mushroom cloud.
China and Russia have provided Iran with its nuclear and missile technology as well.
For China and Russia, handing over weapons technology to rogue states like North Korea and Iran is equivalent to state-sponsored terrorism. Iran and North Korea are irrational actors on the world stage; Iran would likely attempt to use its nuclear arsenal on Israel, and in the near future, North Korea could use her newly-developed weaponry to go after South Korea or Japan, all the while threatening to send a missile to California if the United States is involved.
All of this leaves the United States in the unenviable position of having to fight two enemies at once: Islamic civilization and the dual dictatorial phoenixes of China and Russia. Islamic civilization must be fought on the battlefields; China must be defeated economically; Russia, diplomatically.
China must be made to understand that her trade with the United States is dependent on her cooperation in both the war on Islamo-fascism and the North Korean situation. Russia must understand that she will be held responsible for her profligate trade in weaponry – and for her internal repression.
China and Russia are not our friends, and they must not be treated as such.
Related special offer:
"Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States"
Benjamin Shapiro is a recent graduate of UCLA and is currently enrolled at Harvard Law School. In "Porn Generation," he explains how mainstream acceptance of pornography is destroying his generation ... and our nation.
Ben also shows how students are duped into becoming socialists, atheists, race-baiters and narcissists in "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth."
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Axis of Evil
Give War a Chance
Thomas Sowell is right on the money:Pacifists vs. Peace
One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts."Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war.
Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent.Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process.
Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany. There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia -- not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy.
There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated."World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.
That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records?Remember the Falkland Islands war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture this little British colony in the South Atlantic? Argentina had been claiming to be the rightful owner of those islands for more than a century. Why didn't it attack these little islands before? At no time did the British have enough troops there to defend them.
Before there were "peace" movements and the U.N., sending troops into those islands could easily have meant finding British troops or bombs in Buenos Aires. Now "world opinion" condemned the British just for sending armed forces into the South Atlantic to take back their islands. Shamefully, our own government was one of those that opposed the British use of force.
But fortunately British prime minister Margaret Thatcher ignored "world opinion" and took back the Falklands. The most catastrophic result of "peace" movements was World War II. While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, "peace" movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm "as an example to others."
British Labor Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If "peace" movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II. Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia.
And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that. For the first two years of that war, the Western democracies lost virtually every battle, all over the world, because pre-war "peace" movements had left them with inadequate military equipment and much of it obsolete. The Nazis and the Japanese knew that. That is why they launched the war."Peace" movements don't bring peace but war.