Sunday, April 30, 2006
Thursday, April 27, 2006
NBC: Chernobyl's uncertain health legacy - Chernobyl Disaster: 20 years later - MSNBC.com
When enviros start arguing against the resurgence of nuclear energy, the following article provides good intellectual ammunition against them: NBC: Chernobyl's uncertain health legacy - Chernobyl Disaster: 20 years later - MSNBC.com.
The key paragraph: "...a recent UN report found that of the millions of people exposed to low levels of radioactive particles spread by wind and in food following the accident, the health effects have proved generally nominal. The exception was a dramatic rise in thyroid cancer among children at the time. Thyroid disorders are widely treatable…."
The key paragraph: "...a recent UN report found that of the millions of people exposed to low levels of radioactive particles spread by wind and in food following the accident, the health effects have proved generally nominal. The exception was a dramatic rise in thyroid cancer among children at the time. Thyroid disorders are widely treatable…."
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Does Iran Already Have Nukes?
The American Enterprise Institute's Dr. Michael Ledeen thinks so.
As does Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post.
I am curious what our millitary intelligence thinks.
As does Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post.
I am curious what our millitary intelligence thinks.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Iran: World's #1 State Sponsor of Terrorism
If most Americans agree with President Bush's statement following the September 11th attacks that, "We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them," then it is time for Americans to lobby the Administration to live up to those words by removing from power the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism: the current Iranian government. This radical Islamicist theocracy, with its religiously fanatical mullahs and its insane, apocalyptic, war-mongering, Israel-hating president Ahmadinejad, now appear dead-set on aquiring enriched uranium in order to produce a nuclear weapon.
What's worse (and beyond reasonable debate) is Iranian support for the world's most dangerous terrorists. The U.S. State Department, not exactly a hotbed of pro-Bush enthusiasts, has for eight of the past nine years, named the Iranian goverment as the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism in its annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report.
Moreover, the terrorists supported by Iran are no longer just those, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, whose daily interest is in attacking only Israel. As summarized by counter-terrorism consultant Dan Darling of the Manhattan Institute's Center for Policing Terrorism, a report in the German political magazine, Cicero states:
"The author of this article was able to look at a list of the holy killers who have found safe refuge in Iran. The list reads like the Who's Who of global jihad, with close to 25 high-ranking leadership cadres of Al-Qa'ida--planners, organizers, and ideologues of the jihad from Egypt, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, North Africa, and Europe. Right at the top in the Al-Qa'ida hierarchy: three of Usama Bin Ladin's sons, Saad, Mohammad, and Othman.
"Al-Qa'ida spokesman Abu Ghaib enjoys Iranian protection, as does Abu Dagana al-Alemani (known as the German), who coordinates cooperation of the various jihadist networks throughout the world from Iran. They live in secure housing of the Revolutionary Guard in and around Tehran. "This is not prison or house arrest," is the conclusion of a high-ranking intelligence officer. "They are free to do as they please."
"Saif al-Adel, military chief and number three in Al-Qa'ida, also had a free hand. In early May 2003, Saudi intelligence recorded a telephone conversation with the organizer of the series of attacks in the Saudi capital Riyadh that claimed over 30 victims, including seven foreigners, in May 2003. Saif al-Adel gives orders for the attacks from Iran, where he operated under the wing of the Iranian intelligence service.
"For years, according to the findings of Middle Eastern and Western intelligence services, Iranian intelligence services have already worked together repeatedly with Sunni jihad organizations of Al-Qa'ida. "As an Islamist, I go to the Saudis to get money," the Jordanian GID man outlines the current practice of Islamist holy warriors. "When I need weapons, logistical support, or military terrorist training and equipment, I go to the Iranians."
Given the undeniable links of the Iranian regime to the world's worst terrorists, and its highly likely desire to produce nuclear weapons, the American people should be demanding that the Bush Administration do the right thing and initiate a regime change in Iran before it is too late.
What's worse (and beyond reasonable debate) is Iranian support for the world's most dangerous terrorists. The U.S. State Department, not exactly a hotbed of pro-Bush enthusiasts, has for eight of the past nine years, named the Iranian goverment as the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism in its annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report.
Moreover, the terrorists supported by Iran are no longer just those, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, whose daily interest is in attacking only Israel. As summarized by counter-terrorism consultant Dan Darling of the Manhattan Institute's Center for Policing Terrorism, a report in the German political magazine, Cicero states:
"The author of this article was able to look at a list of the holy killers who have found safe refuge in Iran. The list reads like the Who's Who of global jihad, with close to 25 high-ranking leadership cadres of Al-Qa'ida--planners, organizers, and ideologues of the jihad from Egypt, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, North Africa, and Europe. Right at the top in the Al-Qa'ida hierarchy: three of Usama Bin Ladin's sons, Saad, Mohammad, and Othman.
"Al-Qa'ida spokesman Abu Ghaib enjoys Iranian protection, as does Abu Dagana al-Alemani (known as the German), who coordinates cooperation of the various jihadist networks throughout the world from Iran. They live in secure housing of the Revolutionary Guard in and around Tehran. "This is not prison or house arrest," is the conclusion of a high-ranking intelligence officer. "They are free to do as they please."
"Saif al-Adel, military chief and number three in Al-Qa'ida, also had a free hand. In early May 2003, Saudi intelligence recorded a telephone conversation with the organizer of the series of attacks in the Saudi capital Riyadh that claimed over 30 victims, including seven foreigners, in May 2003. Saif al-Adel gives orders for the attacks from Iran, where he operated under the wing of the Iranian intelligence service.
"For years, according to the findings of Middle Eastern and Western intelligence services, Iranian intelligence services have already worked together repeatedly with Sunni jihad organizations of Al-Qa'ida. "As an Islamist, I go to the Saudis to get money," the Jordanian GID man outlines the current practice of Islamist holy warriors. "When I need weapons, logistical support, or military terrorist training and equipment, I go to the Iranians."
Given the undeniable links of the Iranian regime to the world's worst terrorists, and its highly likely desire to produce nuclear weapons, the American people should be demanding that the Bush Administration do the right thing and initiate a regime change in Iran before it is too late.
A General Misunderstanding - New York Times
I have respected and admired Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld since I first came to "know" him via television during the early months of the first Bush Administration. My appreciation of his courage, his keen mind, and his tough outspokeness have been affirmed in this Op-Ed by retired Marine lieutenant general Michael DeLong, the No. 2 general at United States Central Command from the Sept. 11 attacks through the Iraq war: A General Misunderstanding - New York Times. This article also debunks the assertion of the Administration's critics that "it had a plan for winning the war, but not for winning the peace."
Speaking of winning the peace, this blog entry by a professional political statistician gives some hard numbers suggesting that we are, in fact, winning the peace.
Speaking of winning the peace, this blog entry by a professional political statistician gives some hard numbers suggesting that we are, in fact, winning the peace.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
The Millitary as Last Option Argument
Hugh Hewitt has done a (belatedly) good job of covering the dangerous Hojjatieh ideology of Iranian president Mahmud Ahmadinejad, and the threat of Iran's mullah's obtaining a nuclear weapon. However, I fear he overestimates President Bush's intellectual adeptness in dealing with this dire situation in a timely manner. So, I wrote Hugh a letter, which I reprint here.
Dear Hugh,
1. Thank you for focusing on the danger of Iran’s mullahs on your show and your blog these last few days. I consider myself a student of Dr. Michael Ledeen who, as nearly the only prominent American intellectual to have urged regime change in Iran for the past three years, has been a modern equivalent of Winston Churchill during the "Alone" years. I would argue that the honor of this comparison belongs to Dr. Ledeen as much, if not more, than to anyone else on the American political scene (given that Dr. Ledeen is a professional intellectual, not a politician).
2. I am deeply concerned that, with the current Iranian situation, President Bush is falling for the same "let diplomacy take its course through the U.N." delusion, foisted upon him by Tony Blair and Colin Powell in 2002. Only this time, the pressure is coming from the Democrats and a perceived reluctance of the American people (as portrayed by the MSM) to undertake another military action against a second Middle Eastern regime. They are saying that the U.S. doesn’t have the will or the way. I do think that President Bush has the "will". I just don’t think he has the "way", i.e., the intellectual arguments needed to justify action against Iran outside the context of the U.N..
3. The main argument put forth by the Left against taking quicker action to overthrow Iran’s mullah’s is based on the same maxim they misused to argue for delaying military action against Saddam during 2002: "Military force should only be used as a last resort." As misused by the Left, this maxim is taken out of proper context, and it is used to trick the intellectually unsophisticated into thinking that military action must be delayed until literally the very last minute before the enemy strikes us. This is, of course, suicide. Waiting until the mullahs have nuclear weapons is waiting until it is too late.
4. We (and by "we", I mean anyone who has any chance to influence the policy of the Bush Administration) should be counter-attacking against this faulty argument by pointing out that, while military might may be the least desirable option to use in general, it should not be the last option to use when confronted by enemies, who we know in advance are end-of-the-world Islamist madmen intent on obtaining nuclear weapons..
5. Time is not on our side. Considering that the progress of Iraq’s WMD program was vastly underestimated prior to the 1991 Gulf War, I feel justified in writing that we do not know with sufficient certainty when the mullahs will obtain the ability to produce a nuclear weapon. We can rest assured that they would not hesitate to try fooling us into thinking that they are further away than is actually the case. And with President Bush apparently dead set on letting "diplomacy take its course" through the U.N. (where Russia and China will ultimately veto any Security Council resolution with teeth), I think all of us have cause to be deeply concerned.
Dear Hugh,
1. Thank you for focusing on the danger of Iran’s mullahs on your show and your blog these last few days. I consider myself a student of Dr. Michael Ledeen who, as nearly the only prominent American intellectual to have urged regime change in Iran for the past three years, has been a modern equivalent of Winston Churchill during the "Alone" years. I would argue that the honor of this comparison belongs to Dr. Ledeen as much, if not more, than to anyone else on the American political scene (given that Dr. Ledeen is a professional intellectual, not a politician).
2. I am deeply concerned that, with the current Iranian situation, President Bush is falling for the same "let diplomacy take its course through the U.N." delusion, foisted upon him by Tony Blair and Colin Powell in 2002. Only this time, the pressure is coming from the Democrats and a perceived reluctance of the American people (as portrayed by the MSM) to undertake another military action against a second Middle Eastern regime. They are saying that the U.S. doesn’t have the will or the way. I do think that President Bush has the "will". I just don’t think he has the "way", i.e., the intellectual arguments needed to justify action against Iran outside the context of the U.N..
3. The main argument put forth by the Left against taking quicker action to overthrow Iran’s mullah’s is based on the same maxim they misused to argue for delaying military action against Saddam during 2002: "Military force should only be used as a last resort." As misused by the Left, this maxim is taken out of proper context, and it is used to trick the intellectually unsophisticated into thinking that military action must be delayed until literally the very last minute before the enemy strikes us. This is, of course, suicide. Waiting until the mullahs have nuclear weapons is waiting until it is too late.
4. We (and by "we", I mean anyone who has any chance to influence the policy of the Bush Administration) should be counter-attacking against this faulty argument by pointing out that, while military might may be the least desirable option to use in general, it should not be the last option to use when confronted by enemies, who we know in advance are end-of-the-world Islamist madmen intent on obtaining nuclear weapons..
5. Time is not on our side. Considering that the progress of Iraq’s WMD program was vastly underestimated prior to the 1991 Gulf War, I feel justified in writing that we do not know with sufficient certainty when the mullahs will obtain the ability to produce a nuclear weapon. We can rest assured that they would not hesitate to try fooling us into thinking that they are further away than is actually the case. And with President Bush apparently dead set on letting "diplomacy take its course" through the U.N. (where Russia and China will ultimately veto any Security Council resolution with teeth), I think all of us have cause to be deeply concerned.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Russia Spies Operated in Iraq Through 2003 - Yahoo! News
The plot thickens.....Russia Spies Operated in Iraq Through 2003 - Yahoo! News.
It is a good thing that the American public and the U.S. government are finally being forced to recognize that Russia is no friend of the United States.
Without the evidence of this story forcing Americans to recognize Vladimir Putin's antagonism towards the U.S., Americans and their goverment would let their fear of a return to the Cold War keep them from recognizing that Putin is an enemy of freedom, and that the Russian government, under his rule, has again become a dictatorship.
It is a good thing that the American public and the U.S. government are finally being forced to recognize that Russia is no friend of the United States.
Without the evidence of this story forcing Americans to recognize Vladimir Putin's antagonism towards the U.S., Americans and their goverment would let their fear of a return to the Cold War keep them from recognizing that Putin is an enemy of freedom, and that the Russian government, under his rule, has again become a dictatorship.
Pentagon: Russia Gave Saddam U.S. Intel - Yahoo! News
It seems our friends, the Russians, led by Mr. Putin, are not such great "strategic partners" for advancing freedom in the world as we would like to believe: Pentagon: Russia Gave Saddam U.S. Intel - Yahoo! News
Monday, February 20, 2006
Democracy vs. Freedom
The recent elections in the Palestinian territories, in which the terrorist group Hamas was voted into official political leadership, bring into focus a crucial intellectual issue undermining the Western world, especially in its fight with Islamic terrorist-supporting nations. Specifically, people throughout the world mistakenly think that "democracy" is the equivalent of political freedom.
However, this belief is a deadly misidentification of the true meaning of political liberty. "Democracy" is antithetical to liberty. Rather, as I will argue below, it is the recognition of individual rights that results in political freedom.
"Individual rights" are entitlements to freedom of action. Human beings are entitled to certain freedoms (i.e., rights) by virtue of their nature as sovereign thinking individuals. Examples of individual rights include: the rights to life, liberty, free speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom to earn and own property.
To put it simply, freedom means you can do what you want with your own life, so long as you do not interfere with the lives of others. Jefferson eloquently wrote of freedom in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Within these few carefully written sentences, Jefferson suggests the relationship between individual rights and democracy; he implies that upon a foundation of individual rights, a proper government may be elected by popular vote. Moreover, he explicitly states that the purpose of such a popularly elected government is to protect those rights. Thus, this is how democracy - or more correctly, elections - relate to freedom: individuals possess certain unalienable rights, and to secure those rights, individuals elect a government for protection of their rights.
However, having political elections without the foundation of individual rights, i.e., "democracy", is nothing more than mob rule, i.e., collectivist dictatorship. Instead of a single dictator infringing upon his subject's freedoms, as in a monarchy, democracy substitutes several million voting dictators to infringe upon their subject's freedoms. But increasing the number of people who decide to violate your rights does not make the violation any more legitimate. To quote the philosopher Ayn Rand, "Under a system of Collectivism, a million men (or anyone claiming to represent them) can pass a law to kill one man (or any minority), whenever they think they would benefit by his death. His right to live is not recognized. Under Individualism, it is illegal to kill the man and it is legal for him to defend himself. The law is on the side of a right. Under Collectivism, it is legal for the majority to kill a man and it is illegal for him to defend himself. The law is on the side of a number."
For example, it was in a democracy that Socrates was put to death for supposedly corrupting the youth of Athens; it was in a democracy that the dictator, Adolf Hitler, was brought to power; it was in a democratic election that last week, the terrorist group, Hamas, was elected to rule the Palestinians and launch attacks against Israel.
In this context, it is important to note that within a truly free society, individuals cannot delegate to their government rights they do not possess themselves to begin with. In other words, if you, as an individual, cannot murder your neighbor and steal his money, then likewise, it does not matter how many of your neighbors you get together to vote to commit these same acts. To do so is to grant to the mob the right to take away the rights of anyone at any time simply by majority vote.
No, democracies are not free societies. Individual rights define and delimit what issues may properly be voted upon. Outside the context of individual rights, there is no limit to the power of the majority: anything goes. In a free society, we elect our government representatives, but we cannot rightfully elect leaders or vote to approve measures whose avowed purpose violates individual rights.
And yet, because we elect our leaders within constitutional republics, people in the Western world mistakenly call their countries "democracies", and sloppily mix together in their heads the concept of individual liberty with the act of voting as such, voting without regard to what is being voted upon. Thereby, as a result of intellectual laziness and imprecision, people allow their freedom to be slowly degraded without ever identifying exactly what that freedom actually consists of. Loss of freedom is the result of a fuzzy understanding of liberty.
The intellectual package deal of equating democracy with individual liberty is not simply a matter of semantics, it is not simply a word game. By referring to a constitutional republic as a democracy, people are allowing the enemies of freedom to justify the election of the most heinous of dictatorships (e.g., Hamas). In other words, by the simple act of calling America a democracy, people give the Palestinian mob's choice of Hamas to lead their government the aura of legitimacy since these terrorists were "democratically" elected. And the Hamas leadership knows as much; in a Feb 14, 2005 New York Times article, Hamas official Farhat Asaad is quoted as saying, "First, I thank the United States that they have given us this weapon of democracy. But there is no way to retreat now. It's not possible for the US and the world to turn its back on an elected democracy."
Such governments are neither legitimate nor sovereign. They are simply dictatorships in which everyone infringes on everyone's else's rights, and the group with the most power wins. In other words, they are societies where "might makes right", in contrast to an individualist society, where "right makes right".
However, this belief is a deadly misidentification of the true meaning of political liberty. "Democracy" is antithetical to liberty. Rather, as I will argue below, it is the recognition of individual rights that results in political freedom.
"Individual rights" are entitlements to freedom of action. Human beings are entitled to certain freedoms (i.e., rights) by virtue of their nature as sovereign thinking individuals. Examples of individual rights include: the rights to life, liberty, free speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom to earn and own property.
To put it simply, freedom means you can do what you want with your own life, so long as you do not interfere with the lives of others. Jefferson eloquently wrote of freedom in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Within these few carefully written sentences, Jefferson suggests the relationship between individual rights and democracy; he implies that upon a foundation of individual rights, a proper government may be elected by popular vote. Moreover, he explicitly states that the purpose of such a popularly elected government is to protect those rights. Thus, this is how democracy - or more correctly, elections - relate to freedom: individuals possess certain unalienable rights, and to secure those rights, individuals elect a government for protection of their rights.
However, having political elections without the foundation of individual rights, i.e., "democracy", is nothing more than mob rule, i.e., collectivist dictatorship. Instead of a single dictator infringing upon his subject's freedoms, as in a monarchy, democracy substitutes several million voting dictators to infringe upon their subject's freedoms. But increasing the number of people who decide to violate your rights does not make the violation any more legitimate. To quote the philosopher Ayn Rand, "Under a system of Collectivism, a million men (or anyone claiming to represent them) can pass a law to kill one man (or any minority), whenever they think they would benefit by his death. His right to live is not recognized. Under Individualism, it is illegal to kill the man and it is legal for him to defend himself. The law is on the side of a right. Under Collectivism, it is legal for the majority to kill a man and it is illegal for him to defend himself. The law is on the side of a number."
For example, it was in a democracy that Socrates was put to death for supposedly corrupting the youth of Athens; it was in a democracy that the dictator, Adolf Hitler, was brought to power; it was in a democratic election that last week, the terrorist group, Hamas, was elected to rule the Palestinians and launch attacks against Israel.
In this context, it is important to note that within a truly free society, individuals cannot delegate to their government rights they do not possess themselves to begin with. In other words, if you, as an individual, cannot murder your neighbor and steal his money, then likewise, it does not matter how many of your neighbors you get together to vote to commit these same acts. To do so is to grant to the mob the right to take away the rights of anyone at any time simply by majority vote.
No, democracies are not free societies. Individual rights define and delimit what issues may properly be voted upon. Outside the context of individual rights, there is no limit to the power of the majority: anything goes. In a free society, we elect our government representatives, but we cannot rightfully elect leaders or vote to approve measures whose avowed purpose violates individual rights.
And yet, because we elect our leaders within constitutional republics, people in the Western world mistakenly call their countries "democracies", and sloppily mix together in their heads the concept of individual liberty with the act of voting as such, voting without regard to what is being voted upon. Thereby, as a result of intellectual laziness and imprecision, people allow their freedom to be slowly degraded without ever identifying exactly what that freedom actually consists of. Loss of freedom is the result of a fuzzy understanding of liberty.
The intellectual package deal of equating democracy with individual liberty is not simply a matter of semantics, it is not simply a word game. By referring to a constitutional republic as a democracy, people are allowing the enemies of freedom to justify the election of the most heinous of dictatorships (e.g., Hamas). In other words, by the simple act of calling America a democracy, people give the Palestinian mob's choice of Hamas to lead their government the aura of legitimacy since these terrorists were "democratically" elected. And the Hamas leadership knows as much; in a Feb 14, 2005 New York Times article, Hamas official Farhat Asaad is quoted as saying, "First, I thank the United States that they have given us this weapon of democracy. But there is no way to retreat now. It's not possible for the US and the world to turn its back on an elected democracy."
Such governments are neither legitimate nor sovereign. They are simply dictatorships in which everyone infringes on everyone's else's rights, and the group with the most power wins. In other words, they are societies where "might makes right", in contrast to an individualist society, where "right makes right".
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Publish Those Cartoons
As Charles Krauthammer demonstrates in his op-ed Curse of the Moderates, Western media must publish the Danish cartoons of Mohammad to protect freedom of the press, a value that trumps sensitivity to people's feelings for anyone who knows anything about freedom.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Muslims Offended by Danish Cartoons on Yahoo! News Photos
The photo here: Muslims Offended by Danish Cartoons on Yahoo! News Photos sums up the insanity of those Muslims engaged in violent protests over the Danish cartoons of their prophet, Muhammad. Equating cartoons that offend with bombs that kill is about as totalitarian as you can get. They are quite insane.
Cold War II
Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is conducting Cold War II against the U.S. and Israel: Israel fumes over Putin 'knife in back' - Yahoo! News. The Bush Administration so far refuses to recognize this fact.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Scientists Warn of Melting Ice in Arctic - Yahoo! News
Scientists Warn of Melting Ice in Arctic - Yahoo! News
The Earth's climate has always changed during its approximate 5 billion years, sometimes suddenly, sometimes slowly. In most cases, these changes have led to mass extinctions of species.
Everything humans do affects the environment. Human beings survive by changing the environment. Every material value we have comes from changing the environment, from the most basic necessities: food, clothing, and shelter, to the most advanced technologies: medicine, space technology, and electronics.
The question for us is whether we will shoot our economy in the foot by limiting our oil supplies, or whether we will use our technology to adapt to and overcome global warming.
Environmentalists, many scientists included, seem to think that our technology is evil because it "harms" the environment. They think that nature, unchanged, and undisturbed by mankind, is a good in and of itself.
However, there is no intrinsic value to nature. Nature could care less about human life. Values only exist because human beings exist. Without someone who values, no values would exist. And because of this, human life is the very basis for values. Changing the environment for the benefit of mankind is the only way human beings can survive, and doing so is an act of loyalty to our values. It is a virtue, not a vice.
The Earth's climate has always changed during its approximate 5 billion years, sometimes suddenly, sometimes slowly. In most cases, these changes have led to mass extinctions of species.
Everything humans do affects the environment. Human beings survive by changing the environment. Every material value we have comes from changing the environment, from the most basic necessities: food, clothing, and shelter, to the most advanced technologies: medicine, space technology, and electronics.
The question for us is whether we will shoot our economy in the foot by limiting our oil supplies, or whether we will use our technology to adapt to and overcome global warming.
Environmentalists, many scientists included, seem to think that our technology is evil because it "harms" the environment. They think that nature, unchanged, and undisturbed by mankind, is a good in and of itself.
However, there is no intrinsic value to nature. Nature could care less about human life. Values only exist because human beings exist. Without someone who values, no values would exist. And because of this, human life is the very basis for values. Changing the environment for the benefit of mankind is the only way human beings can survive, and doing so is an act of loyalty to our values. It is a virtue, not a vice.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Bush Caves on Nuclear Power for Iran
In the following story, Bush Says Don't Expect Oil Price Breaks - Yahoo! News: President Bush says, "'We cannot afford to have Iran with a nuclear weapon' but 'We want them to have nuclear power but under the conditions that we describe.'
So, Russia's Vladimir Putin is pressuring Bush not to attack Iran because the Russians are selling nuclear reactor components and expertise to the Iranians. The Iranians clearly intend to obtain nuclear weapons (clearly, because with all that oil, they don't need nuclear power) and Bush is giving into Putin's pressure in a pragmatic move in which uranium would be processed in Russia and then given to Iran. Unfortunately, we cannot trust Putin - he is no friend of liberty. He would likely have no misgivings about another country obtaining nuclear weapons to counter the power of the U.S., Israel, and the UK. Furthermore, even if Putin has no desire to see a nuclear armed Iran, who can trust Russian arms inspectors? With a wink and a nod, they could easily pass the Iranians the highly processed uranium needed for a nuclear bomb.
Bush, why are you being so short-sighted?
So, Russia's Vladimir Putin is pressuring Bush not to attack Iran because the Russians are selling nuclear reactor components and expertise to the Iranians. The Iranians clearly intend to obtain nuclear weapons (clearly, because with all that oil, they don't need nuclear power) and Bush is giving into Putin's pressure in a pragmatic move in which uranium would be processed in Russia and then given to Iran. Unfortunately, we cannot trust Putin - he is no friend of liberty. He would likely have no misgivings about another country obtaining nuclear weapons to counter the power of the U.S., Israel, and the UK. Furthermore, even if Putin has no desire to see a nuclear armed Iran, who can trust Russian arms inspectors? With a wink and a nod, they could easily pass the Iranians the highly processed uranium needed for a nuclear bomb.
Bush, why are you being so short-sighted?
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Democracy vs. Liberty in Palestine
Democracy is not the same thing as liberty. Freedom comes only from the recognition of individual's rights to life, liberty, and property. If the majority in a democracy can vote to strip you of these rights, you are not free. If the majority in a society can vote to install a dictatorship, the society is not free - not only after the dictatorship is installed, but before the vote as well. If your rights are open to be voted upon, you are not free.
Applying this to a current event, if the Palestinians have voted to install Hamas as their leaders, the Palestinians are not free. Only when the Palestinians respect the rights of individuals in their own society and the rights of individuals outside their society, will the Palestinians be free.
Dictatorships are not legitimate sovereign governments.
Applying this to a current event, if the Palestinians have voted to install Hamas as their leaders, the Palestinians are not free. Only when the Palestinians respect the rights of individuals in their own society and the rights of individuals outside their society, will the Palestinians be free.
Dictatorships are not legitimate sovereign governments.
Friday, January 27, 2006
There They Go Again....
This article Forum Spotlights Problems of Poor Women - Yahoo! News has got to take the award for Bullshit Socialist Propaganda of the Year Award.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Many in Congress Hawkish on Iran - Yahoo! News
It seems to be an article of faith, among so many politicians quoted in this article, that millitary action should be the option of last resort Many in Congress Hawkish on Iran - Yahoo! News. Yet, when we consider dangers at stake in this game, we must ask if it is so wise to wait until the religious fanantic Iranian mullahs may obtain a nuclear bomb before we act.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Iran's Quest for Atomic Weapons
The website of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a private organization founded by CNN's Ted Turner and former Democrat senator Sam Nunn, is an excellent starting point for researching Iran's quest to develop atomic weapons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)