Tough Vote

Is a No Fly Zone in Libya 'just'?

2011-03-11T17:28:00.000-05:00

After recently reading Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars I was interested in applying the Just War doctrine to the intervention of a US no-fly zone in Libya. Recently rebels have advocated for NATO to get involved and multilaterally establish a no-fly zone to deter the air superiority of Gaddafi's loyalists. Now, I am not a huge advocate for the Just War doctrine, but just wanted to explore the no-fly zone within its criteria.

Just War Criteria:

1. Just Cause
This is always tricky to decide subjectively, but as Walzer argues, you must observe political autonomy and respect international borders as those embroiled in civil/secessionist conflict need to maintain a balance. If the US or NATO were to intervene and this tipped the scales in favor of the rebels, if they won decisively because of our entrance, then this would fail this criteria. Seems strange that this is so rigid but nonetheless it fails.

2.Legitimate Authority
This one is easier to satisfy. First, the intervention (no fly zone) must be done by a recognized world government. Check. Next it must have international approval. This has been danced around so far, the UN has not determined anything as of yet, perhaps looking at points made in this doctrine. Also China and Russia typically veto anything they see as meddling in other countries internal affairs.

3.Right Intention
Another sticky point. It is impossible to say that the US intervening would be to strictly balance the sides and done simply in the interest of the oppressed party. Sure, that could be part of the argument but why do we care about Libya in the first place? Oil is one, and having a favorable government installed would allow more influence in the region. Sadly its nearly to truly meet this condition, although if a true humanitarian crisis arose, where the world was convinced of great threatening evil to all Libyan people (and maybe surrounding countries), the intention would be good and therefore just. It just needs this disinction.

4. Probability of Success
This one is pretty sure. US air power is vastly superior to what Gaddafi has. Success is realistic and therefore satisfactory.

5.Last Resort
We are moving closer to meeting this goal. We have already taken indirect and diplomatic measures to help put pressure on Gaddafi. Its impossible to tell if you are really on "the last resort" but if the situation because dire in a humanitarian way as mentioned above, this would be met.

6.Proportionality
This is most likely appeased. By intervening, we would eliminate Gaddafi's air power, and we would have to stop there. That is what the rebels asked and that would restore "balance." Introducing land war would over step this boundary, that is, unless another power comes to the help of the loyalists in which case Just War states that counter-intervention is just and nearly necessary. Gaddafi's influx of mercenaries could be defined as foreign help, but again this is ambiguous and requires deeper analysis.

7. Discrimination
The US has the technology to make civilian casualties limited but not extinct. The F-22 has the ability to evade Libya's ground-to-air defenses that would need to be bombed otherwise, and cause noncombatant deaths. Therefore we can meet this criteria from a teleological argument.

Overall it seems that a no-fly zone misses some points that are required to make the intervention "just" but should the conflict degenerate into a genocide or mass executions break out, it would alleviate some of the constraints that formally held back the move, and indeed may call for a more of a response. Also, we need to weigh the fact that bringing in multiple aircraft carriers would take away from our other conflict (Afghanistan, Iraq) and would also become quite costly; not something that wants to be brought up in the middle of a budget crisis.

Uprising in Saudi Arabia, Sarkozy Makes Statement

2011-03-10T15:17:00.000-05:00

I wanted to post today, despite not having a lot of time for in-depth analysis. The first thing to catch my eye is the trouble brewing in Saudi Arabia. This has been the big question since these revolutions became pan-arab, what will happen in the Kingdom? Apparently police used force on a group of protesters, its unknown whether anyone has died although one man is reported injured. The markets are already tumbling now that the oil giant has failed to keep its people happy.

What can he do?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, not just because of the massive implications a Saudi uprising would have, but because this is against a monarchy. Egypt and Tunisia, along with Libya, are run by dictators, mostly revolving around a cult of personality. We do have somewhat of a example in Jordan where the king has tried to appease protesters before things get out of hand. Monarchies are in a unique position, they can claim distance from the inefficient government they normally control. They can "clear house" to separate themselves from the bureaucracy but just how far can that go? Keep an eye out, a prince has already called for a relief of ban on women driving, and the Day of Rage planned for Friday will definitely be watched closely.

The other news concerns Libya, and France taking the lead on bringing in outside assistance. They have recognized the rebels and are deliberating taking military action. NATO is meeting in Brussels to talk over the issues, and the US is sitting back, which might be the best policy right now. I want to do a more in-depth post concerning the revolutions in the Middle East but I do want to mention that at a forum the other night, Peter Mansoor (former right hand man of Petraeus) suggested that a No-Fly zone, done by the US at least, is not desirable. He pointed out that (1) we don't want to be seen as influencing an internal revolution and (2) a no fly zone needs to be accompanied with an all or nothing strategy, that is, we need to fully commit or abstain from dabbling. I will elaborate on this and more in a future post.

Proof that this country isn't at its best

2011-03-08T13:41:00.000-05:00

I was looking through some headlines online today and stumbled across this:

Congressional Dems Complain about Cups

Now, I understand that there has been research that suggests that styrofoam cups can pose health risks. Health issues are obviously a big issue in this country right now but complaining about the cafeteria cups? Really? And not only that but the Dems are turning it into a partisan issue (not that the GOP doesn't). They want their recyclable cups back they had under Pelosi. I want congressmen/women who will fix real issues but I guess it doesn't always work out does it? No wonder absolutely no one believes in the ones we vote to send to Capital Hill. Partisanship has reached unprecedented levels and the losers are the voters. Do we really need to put up with this stuff?

Five Things More Important Than the Congressional Styrofoam Cups
1. The Economy/Jobs
2. The Revolutions in the Middle East
3. Government Spending
4. Declining Education
5. March Madness (Do you think the average citizen knows the star player for their local team or their representative? Sad.)

WARNING FROM WASHINGTON:

A threat to us all

IF SEEN PLEASE CALL:
1-800-THIS-IS-WHAT-IT-HAS-COME-TO

Top Countries: Will China overtake the US?

2011-03-04T20:03:00.001-05:00

Recently, there has been a lot of talk about the "rise of the rest." This phenomena has caught fire because supposedly it threatens US hegemony. America has been squarely on top since the fall of the Soviet Union but now the rise of developing countries, notably China, have threatened American dominance.

Now, its hard to judge which country is "best," but we can look at notable categorical criteria to see what direction certain political/economic factors are pushing the major nations. I have compiled some data based on proposed criteria for evaluating what a makes a country strong. While of course its debateable how important they are, I nonetheless present you with this data table: Click for image (too large to fit this frame)

This is also only a handful of countries. I tried to pick some of the notable ones: the ones with the hype, biggest economies, economic potential etc. It is worthy to note that a great many African countries have very promising growth rates in GDP, Population, and Education. I have not included any as they have a way to go before a geopolitical dominance bid.

Drawing from the data I will first bring your attention to this:

Click to Enlarge

Population vs. Projected Population: No surprise that China and India are the biggest bastions of humans, they will continue this trend. It is interesting that Indonesia will greatly increase in population, a prime area for economic boom should the policy utilize the manpower. Some of the European nations included will actually suffer a population decline. This issue is also prevalent in Russia, much to the dismay of ethnic Russians who would rather not assimilate the influx of immigrants. The US will grow, and immigration will be a prime factor in the shaping of its demographics.

Next....

Click to Enlarge

This scatter plot has Population on the X-axis vs GDP Growth Rate percentage on the Y-axis. I like to contrast these two variable as population is obviously important to economic power, and GDP rate determines who is currently headed down the right track to future economic dominance. Again China and India do not disappoint with their human resources, and their GDP reflects this, they have the highest rates. The European Nations are clumped in the bottom left, not a good omen for their respective economic futures. The US is muddled in with them, distinguished only by its larger population. This lag behind China is the biggest threat right now, and numerous pundits have expounded on the subject. Brazil and Indonesia have silently built a strong GDP rate and as long as they continue to grow, and avoid contraction, they will be primed in the coming decades to build an economic power.

While its obvious that many countries have built up their economic power, with China able to dethrone the US as top economy, that is not surely not the only determining factor in achieving worldwide success. The political theater is also important, and I have included the "Freedom" list to reflect this in part. Freedom is measured by this scale. It is based in economic freedom, but also reflects the general rule of political freedom. I feel that the US's position might be partially politicized, but alas nothing is perfect and they still top the list in the chosen countries. China and Russia bring up the rear as they are obviously remnants of communist style institutions, and have numerous violations of citizens rights. China has been under scrutiny recently and is at the time of this article asking that journalists keep quiet about its internal repression. This is really the only factor holding China back and should it begin to liberalize its citizens rights, it will surely flourish and surpass the United States.

Another note on China's internal policies hurting its growth, as laid out here. While the one child policy originally it helped to stifle overpopulation fears, its effects while eventually catch-up to the sleeping dragon. First it creates "little buddhas," essentially a generation of children that have no siblings and therefore tend to get spoiled. In addition, the rise in the elderly population of China is going to hurt growth. These people don't have the same pool of labor and will also seek retirement benefits. It will be interesting to see how these issues get addressed.

The United Nations also can help determine who's at the top of political influence. The US, Russia, and China all have Security Council status, conveniently for China. Brazil is also looking to join the club. While the United Nations is notoriously bad at having any real influence on big powers, it does come into play in instances such as this, where the big powers grasp for regional control.

Top 10 economies in GDP PPP in 2020

The graph to the left was taken from here. Its a good graphical display of predictions for the future economic battleground. It shows China edging out the US and India falling in behind. Japan, another Asian powerhouse that looked primed to topple the US, has withered, and this table outlining the countries with the largest debt further inclines their peril. They are certainly in rough times and China's rise has hurt their regional control.

The last big point to make here is military power. Many countries in these graphs/tables are nuclear and therefore are highly unlikely of fighting conventional wars with one another. Military might is still a top factor and good ol' Wikipedia lists out the defense spending of all nations. Spending doesn't always translate into the best armies/navies/air forces but I would compare it to candidate spending in US elections, it certainly helps. The US obviously still holds gold here as our aircraft carrier count alone can attest. But recent news suggests the militarization of space, and no one has the absolute advantage here yet; spending can help.

I will certainly add to this topic as more information and statistics become available. Below are some links to other articles that outline other takes on the subject of the "rise of the rest" and I highly suggest checking them out and commenting with your thoughts:

Newsweeks Top 10 Countries

Another bloggers take, specifically detailing China

Top Companies in the World, another factor to consider

Article detailing the effects and evidence of the Rise of the Rest

The Life and Radicalization of Osama bin Laden

2011-03-03T20:05:00.000-05:00

After my long absence, I have decided to post a paper I wrote last fall over the book The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright found here. It details the radicalization of Osama bin Laden, using his personal history as the backdrop. The page numbers reference the aforementioned book. Let me know what you think:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the events of September 11^th, 2001, no man can claim more notoriety than Osama bin Laden. The master financer of a global jihad against the United States, Osama’s fervent hatred for all things modern started early and contained a blend of many different influences. Salafist and Wahhabi sects of Islam, promoted strongly in his former home of Saudi Arabia, laid the foundation of anti-modern sentiment that became nurtured through other radicalized Islamists such as Ayman al Zawahiri and Abdullah Azzam. Combined with other events and people, this potent mix spit out one of the most hated villains of recent decades.

One striking irony of Osama’s life is his reverence for his father, who helped usher in a newer, modern Saudi state. His father had an enduring impact on a young Osama, who, “held him up like a paragon” (Wright 95). Osama also possessed, “deep currents of longing” (84) for his father, despite the effects his father’s business would hold on his future. Mohammed bin Laden began his career track as a brick layer and eventually built his own construction empire which helped, “rush [in] a flood of change” that scared the formally primitive ways of the populace who had a, “widespread feeling that this torrent of progress was eroding the essential quality of Arabia” (99). This feeling would prime Osama for the ideology of Qutb’s anti-modern rhetoric. Through his contracts, bin Laden was, “increasingly close with the royal family” (75), as well as building up infrastructure that eventually would allow the Saudis to become the main supplier of US oil, a fact Osama would condemn in future rhetoric. At home, Mohammed was a pious Muslim, setting a model for Osama, although he would bend the rules when it came to women. Osama would recall that he, “never remembered his father doing anything outside of Islamic Law” and he “always prayed on time” (82). This rigid piety was bent when it came to sexual indulgences, as Wright points outs, “the extravagant side of Mohammed bin Laden’s nature made itself evident when it came to women.” He would sometimes marry a woman and simply divorce her the same day, an act his son would shun. One of these women, Alia Ghanem, would also contribute to Osama’s ideological direction; she was his mother. Her effects were not as severe but she held sway over his decisions, as when Osama was going to stop his pursuit of education, he decided against it on account of his, “mother’s tears” (90). The modernization of Saudi Arabia brought in by the hard work of men like Mohammed bin Laden would allow Osama, taught in the vein of Salafism, to become receptive to the ideals of Sayyid Qutb.

Sayyid Qutb, “was the one who most affected our generation” (91) remarked Khalifa, one of Osama’s friends. When Osama hit his teenage years he underwent, “a religious and political awakening” (87). He began to reject elements of western culture such as the old west movies he had loved as a child. When he got to high school he, “joined the Muslim Brothers” (90) who projected Qutb’s view. Qutb preached that political Islam was the only solution to purge the immoral strain modernity had cast upon Islamic culture. This fit right in with the Salafist understanding of living the life the forefathers of the religion had lived. Osama, who was, “frustrated by the situation in Palestine” (87), fell right in line with the notion that the jahiliyya, which Qutb had intended to be cleansed through education, was creating chaos amidst the Muslim world, and that a, “strict imposition of the Sharia” (32) was required. In his eyes, Israel and the US were forcing their modernity, which could be symbolized as the jahiliyya, upon the Muslim states. Included in Qutb’s doctrine for the purification was the, “reject[ion of] nationalism because it warred with ideal of Muslim unity.” This idea became seeded in bin Laden’s vision for al Qaeda and would be nurtured in the searing fatwas of Abdullah Azzam. It was this international Islamic outlook, driven by the idea of jahiliyya as the pitfalls of modernity, which created a basis for future terrorists like Osama to justify attacks against civilians.

In 1979, another event would shape the future of the master terrorist: the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Bin Laden became, “enraged” (109) and began a multi-nation donation campaign, utilizing his wealthy contacts, a legacy of his father. Through this process he met a man that had a huge impact on his life, Abdullah Azzam. Azzam was a proponent of the idea of jahiliyya, and felt that every Muslim, regardless of nationality, was obligated to fight the Soviet incursion, which seemed to literally represent the invasion of modern ideas into the primitive land of Afghanistan. This was reflected upon bin Laden who “revered” Azzam because he “provided a model for the man he would become” (111). The feeling of duty was growing on Osama, who was stalled from fighting for years; “I wish I could raid and be slain” (124) he once declared. Perhaps the most enduring legacy Azzam left upon Osama was his vision of, “eras[ing] national divisions” of Muslims, which he practiced by, “dispers[ing] the Arab volunteers among the various commanders.” Through this teaching, Osama began to take, “his first step toward the creation of an Arab legion that could wage war anywhere” (128) which would be filled with ranks of fighters who, “found that the door closed behind them” (121) when they left their home countries and, “as stateless persons they naturally revolted against the idea of state.” This set up the breeding ground for al Qaeda as an international organization. Azzam’s control over the wealthy fundraiser would soon wane as a new rival sought control: Ayman al Zawahiri.

While Azzam had preached an international message focused on religious obligation, Zawahiri, “gave direction” to Osama, as “a seasoned propagandist,” (146) seeing him as an ally to overthrow the Egyptian government. At this point Osama had, “never voiced opposition to his own government or other regimes,” but through Zawahiri’s increasing manipulation he began, “to solicit the views of others in his company” (148). This was achieved by feeding Osama takfiri propaganda through, “position papers outlining the ‘Islamic’ perspective, which reflected their takfiri tendencies.” Zawahiri wanted to target fellow Muslims, justified through takfir, and did whatever he could to sway bin Laden to his position including providing bodyguards and becoming his personal doctor (220). At this point, Osama, along with other Arabs involved in the waning Soviet conflict, came together and formed the initial shell of al Qaeda. Osama was called an “emir” and the infighting between the Egyptian takfiris, led by Zawahiri, and Azzam continued. Eventually Azzam was killed in an explosion and Zawahiri was free to feed bin Laden his ideas. With the Russians retreating, Osama sought a target for his vision of a global jihad (courtesy of Azzam), and Zawahiri pointed inward, suggesting that Muslim governments needed to be replaced, but bin Laden did not, “relish the prospect of war against Arab governments” (150). This idea would reverse itself and Zawahiri’s influence would gain a solid footing when the Iraqi army decided to invade Kuwait, and “events would soon give bin Laden the excuse he sought to make America into the enemy he needed” (173).

Osama returned to Saudi Arabia from his Afghan campaigns convinced that, “his Arab legion had brought down the mighty superpower” and had, “unprecedented expectations” for the future (165). When Saddam decided to invade Kuwait, resulting in a threatening stance against Saudi interests, Osama “brought his own maps of the region and presented a detailed plan of attack” (178). Prince Turki was, “alarmed” and that “radical changes” he saw in bin Laden. The Saudi leadership dismissed Osama’s plan, instead relying on the Americans. This act of letting a foreign power into the Arabian Peninsula ran directly counter to Osama’s belief that the West, “was responsible for the humiliating failure of the Arabs to succeed” (171). Zawahiri’s calls for purification of Arab governments began to take hold: why would an Arab government invade another and why would a legitimate Islamist government allow the US to fight for them? When the US failed to retreat from Arabia and instead sent troops into Somalia, Osama decided, “something had to be done” (192). It was during this time he had taken residence in Sudan under the Turabi regime, and “the lure of peace [was] as strong as the battle cry for jihad” (193). At this fateful point, with the US projecting its influence in the Arab world, bin Laden’s religious advisor Abu Hajer al-Iraqi, who held “the greatest spiritual authority” (194), determined that the US, the last remaining superpower, “represented the greatest threat to Islam.” Al Qaeda’s purpose was now, “to awaken the Islamic nation to the threat posed by the modernizing West” (196). Osama’s hatred for the ills of modernity, along with Zawahiri’s call for jihad against compliant Arab governments now believed to be in the US sphere of influence (which was bolstered when Osama’s citizenship was revoked) provided the justification for new attacks.

A practical way to look at Osama bin Laden’s radicalization and the influences comprising it is through the Staircase model designed by Moghaddem. Osama’s “ground floor” impression centers on “perceived deprivation” (Moghaddem 163). This was likely a viewpoint centered on, “a threat to personal or collective identity;” more than likely the modernization and secular values he views the US purporting in Arab nations, as well as the bloodshed in Palestine as Wright points out: “the tragedy of Palestine was a constant theme in his speeches” (150). These influences had enough effect to lift Osama to the first floor, which Moghaddem describes as a, “search for solutions.” Here is where Qutb’s teachings began to have their effect, as a normative political alternative was quashed as, “participatory democracy [is] lacking in Saudi Arabia” (164). Qutb’s idea of eradicating jahiliyya appealed to Osama, and seemed to be a viable solution within his enrollment with the Muslim Brotherhood. As bin Laden climbed to the third floor, the time of “Moral Disengagement” (165), he met Abdullah Azzam, whose intense recruitment gave Osama the, “correct interpretation of Islam” which justified his jihad against the Soviets as a symbol of modernity. It was also at this level that Zawahiri began his control. He used “isolation”, surrounding bin Laden with his Egyptian takfiri bodyguard, using “fear” stating that, “your head is now wanted by the Americans and the Jews” (Wright 146). This allowed bin Laden to move onto the fourth floor, which requires an “out-group” to place blame upon. When the US intervened in Kuwait and Somalia, Osama had a scapegoat for his perceived erosion of Islam at the hands of modernity. In addition, his takfiri influence, Zawahiri, gave an explanation for the betrayal of the Saudis to use his armies. Other Arab governments were simply seen as puppets of the US and the takfiri doctrine of expelling Muslims who have lost the faith came into focus. In order to reach the final step in Moghaddem’s model, bin Laden had to commit to terrorist acts, and sidestep the “inhibitory mechanisms” that could derail an attack. That act was the bombing of US embassies in Africa, and the justification, according to bin Laden, was, “that the bombings gave the Americans a taste of the atrocities that Muslims had experienced” (Wright 309). Osama bin Laden wanted to, “lure the US into Afghanistan” and defeat them in jihad just like the Russians, a parallel that helped in justification.

Osama’s ascent up the Staircase and into Islamic radicalism is full of milestones and injunctions that are important in understanding others who may follow. The threat of modernization in his home of Saudi Arabia primed a young Osama for Qutb’s declaration of a cleansing of Islam. Abdullah Azzam provided the vision of a Pan-Arab jihad, based in Qutb’s tradition, and Zawahiri added the propaganda for justification of attacks against Arab governments, seen as puppets of the US, through takfiri doctrine. With so many different avenues of influence it is hard to determine if the path of the most notorious terrorist in the world could have been altered, and history along with it.

Arising from the ashes after 5 years

2011-03-01T21:10:00.002-05:00

After more than five years Tough Vote has come back from its long period of inactivity. In the past five years my political leanings and thoughts have undergone evolutions and therefore some former posts have been taken down to reflect this. I will likely readdress those issues with a fresh perspective. Stay tuned for new (and hopefully frequent) posts.

Global Warming: Myth or Reality?

2007-01-08T22:16:00.000-05:00

Out of nowhere suddenly the Earth is heating up at unprecedented rates that are caused by and and threaten to dismantle civilization...or is it? I have seen An Inconvenient Truth, and I say it does quite the job at scaring you about nothing. After researching the subject from both points of view, I have concluded that there IS a heat increase, only it is a natural process and that man has nothing to do with it, except maybe all the hot air Al Gore has been spewing. Global Warming has been spun into an over hyped political issue. It really doesn't matter anymore, because it is as much of a threat as Global Cooling was decades back.

Myth #1 - Scientists agree that Global Warming is a problem

So the Earth has been found to have increased between .3-.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, so you can argue that, yes, there has been some increase in the temperature. They only thing is that this shift is no irregularity in over 15,000 years. Another note, it was actually warmer during the time period between the 10th and 15th centuries, and guess what?..we're still here! Now, I could show this graph:
OH MY GOD! Look how high that black line goes! Hold on a second! That is one calculation, and lets take a look at its origins. It says its from the IPCC, a group that claimed global warming was a man made threat to society. Later, they admitted that they doctored evidence in their report at the will of influencing politicians. So, by disposing their flawed result both through its manipulated result and also seeing that it was taken over the shortest span of time, we see that no other line surpasses the Medieval Warm period. The maroon colored line reaches, but does not exceed, any line during the medieval warming period. Also, the highest results of temperature calculated have been through ground readings, which are flawed due to the urban heat island effect, while calculations taken with satellite-the most accurate avaliable-have shown that temperatures have recently gone down.

Myth #2 - Man is responsible for any warming occuring

Well seeing as how 96.5% of carbon dioxide emissions are natural and man is responsible for 3.5%, of which 0.6% comes from cars and 1% from buildings. Let's see what scientists think.
I wouldn't say 17% is sufficent to warrant immediate, hasty, drastic legislation. So I guess this also answers the myth that "most" scientists agree that global is a man-made threat to humanity. Simply, it isnt.

Myth #3 - Reducing car use will save the planet because carbon dioxide is causing the warming.
As stated above, 0.6% of the miniscule 3.5% of man-made carbon emissions is from automobiles. Also, it has been scientifically proven through ice samples that everytime the temperature changed, the caron levels then increased. This proves multiple points. First we see that carbon emissions are naturally occuring more then man could ever match. Second, this renders the current agrument irrelevent: carbon -> higher temperatures when actually through actual evidence that does not involve embellished unproven speculation, it is actually the reverse. Also it is helpful to see that the current carbon levels are at 350 parts per million. In the past the levels have been 18 times higher, long before factories, cars, or power stations were around.

Myth #4 - Global Warming will cause disastrous events and people will die
This is just unneeded panic. The Earth currently is under no threat from Global Warming. Even scientists on the IPCC have argued against cataclysmic effects. It is said that ice caps are melting. This is true, but what is overlooked quite conveniently is that they are also refreezing and growing in other areas. It is also true that sea levels have risen; 300 ft over 18000 years, predating any human involvement. Also, current sea level increase is at one of the lowest rates recorded. A couple of other bits:

-"Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of hurricanes."

-"From 1991 through 1995, relatively few hurricanes occurred, and even the unusually intense 1995 hurricane season did not reverse the downward trend. "

-"The 1996 IPCC report on climate change found a worldwide significant increase in tropical storms unlikely; some regions may experience increased activity while others will see fewer, less severe storms."

(From NCPA)

Also it has been proven that higher temperatures that would lead to these storms are beneficial. Crops have an easier time, an agricultural plus, and cold-related deaths would decrease drastically. Also, ice samples have shown us that temperatures have risen to 10 times the current levels, and fallen back down, in the span of a human lifetime.

In conclusion, the perceived threat of global warming has been proven to be wrong and based on uncertain "facts". The Global Warming fad has already begun to die down, to the dismay of many greenies who are pushing for immediate legislature. The only problem is, we have to listen to their useless, factless arguments.

Good news!

2006-12-17T09:17:00.000-05:00

Take a look at the first section of this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216260,00.html

According to "Atiyah", a senior Al-Qaeda official, the insurgency has taken some major blows and their strength is dwindling:

"We are in a stage of weakness and a state of paucity. We have not yet reached a level of stability."

So all that talk of us breeding terrorism seems to have lost some of its base. We are certainly not losing. The liberal stance has always been that we went in and things just kept getting worse.

"And it laments losing the hearts of many Muslims"

This directly contradicts any argument that was previously raised. Also using simple logic, Critics of Iraq have argued that Iraq has been the central driving force to creating terrorists and jihadists but then turn around and say that it isn't the main front on the War on Terror. Well, that doesn't make any sense really, if that's were their bred, why isn't that the main battle line? Since we have evidence that Iraq is actually hurting the insurgency I can't see why they still argue against it.

Now, I hate when the almost every news show/magazine just shows all the trouble and "failures" of US troops. How about we recognize what they have done well?

12 terrorists killed North of Baghdad

Four terrorists killed, six detained

Ten terrorists killed, bomb-making factory destroyed

Scores of suspected terrorists detained

And then we hear crap about how US soldiers are "too brutal". Well first of all nothing is more brutal and cowardly then kidnapping contractors and beheading them. How about this:

Kirkuk hospital, clinics receive supplies

Soldiers deliver supplies to children

Engineers teaching

New schools opened

Why did we kick Iraq's ass so quick?

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xsbcj_larsenal-de-saddam-hussein

List of terrorists leaders killed/captured:

Abu Faraj al-Libbi Captured in Pakistan

Abu Zubaydah Captured in Pakistan

Abdur Rahman Captured in Pakistan

Mustafa Setmariam Nasar Captured in Pakistan

Abu Musab al-Suri Captured in Pakistan

Mushin Musa Matwalli Atwah Listed date: October 10, 2001 Status: killed April 12, 2006 along with 6 other militants by Pakistani forces in a helicopter gunship raid on the village of Naghar Kalai near the Afghan border. Villagers reported that armed men removed the bodies; was removed from the list by October 20, 2006; Atwah's death was confirmed by US officials on October 24, 2006, following DNA testing.

Saif Al-Adel Listed date: October 10, 2001 Status: - Arrested in Iran

Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan Listed date: October 10, 2001 Status: Captured in Pakistan in 2002 according to Amnesty International

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani Listed date: October 10, 2001 Status: Captured in Pakistan on July 25, 2004

Mustafa Mohamed Fadhil Listed date: October 10, 2001 Status: Captured in Pakistan

Muhammad Atef Listed date: October 10, 2001 Status: Killed in Afghanistan on November 14, 2001 by a Predator missile attack on his home outside of Kabul

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Listed date: October 10, 2001 Status: captured in Pakistan on March 1, 2003;

and don't forget,

Saddam "insane" - http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/14/sprj.irq.saddam.operation/index.html

al-Zarqawi - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13195017/

Just remember, there is good, you just have to look a little bit.

Return to the Moon

2006-12-04T22:15:00.000-05:00

Its been a awhile since I last posted but now I should be able to get some stuff back up. Anyways I just saw a very interesting article at CNN.com. It seems that NASA is preparing to keep a base or HQ on the Moon preferably on the North or South pole. The poles have the greatest amount of sunlight which could maximize solar energy capabilities. The scientists have pointed out the Shackleton Crater as a likely sight; it is in direct sunlight and also is near an area that may yield water.

Now I was thinking, if this is NASA, this means this would almost exclusive to the USA. Although we could probably manage the project ourselves, I think NASA is currently reaching out internationally and organize something similar to the International Space Station. The thought of inhabiting the Moon is quite neat. The Moon seems to have fallen by the astronomical wayside as Mars became the cool thing. Of course this mission is also a stepping stone for a trip to Mars.

I wonder if creating bases on the Moon will eventually lead to colonization? This is not a wild proposition. Now, in today's world, we don't have the technology to stay on the Moon for very long periods but the timetable for this operation is set for 2020. By then, who knows?

Where the problem really is

2006-10-30T18:11:00.000-05:00

I have created this map to display the actual concentration of attacks in Iraq. It is based on data from reports on amount of attacks per month and the total attacks since we defeated the conventional military and then I crunched the percentages. It seems that only four provinces provide 81% of the total attacks. This is astounding. The yellow shaded regions suffer on average less then 5 attacks a month. Now apparently all of Iraq isn't a mess, its the central area and sprawl around Baghdad. Now I do realize that those areas have some of the highest density, but there is also a high density in the far north and and a high density in the southeast. With this info, we can decipher where the real problems are occurring and act accordingly. I believe that this also displays the containment of the insurgency or at the very least were it centralizes.

Resolutions in Iraq

2006-10-28T11:04:00.000-04:00

If we want to achieve a complete and full victory of Iraq several different actions must take place:

*What the insurgency wants
The insurgents are not looking to confront US forces or even Iraqi forces because (1) They are to cowardly to show their pitiful selfish faces, and (2) They have adapted a plan that has exploited the one weakness Americans relent to, attrition. When the US was forced "to give peace a chance" by talking with UN before taking military action in Iraq it opened the door for postwar preparation by the Baathist Regime. Saddam and his followers realized that the US military is not going to be defeated conventionally. The way to break us to fight a battle of attrition as shown in Vietnam. They also had a perfect playbook in the situation in Afghanistan. Americans don't like (unless they are the liberal media who repeatedly airs this garbage) reports of American casualties day after day. It pushes them to want withdrawal and just run away. By contesting influence of public opinion, the insurgents can get the US military to withdrawal and have free reign to take Iraq back. By conducting suicide attacks, planting roadside bombs, and drawing attention to civilian death the insurgents can persuade the public to want no part in such a mess.

With this knowledge we must...

*Not Withdraw
This is a signal that we have been defeated. Recently, John McCain has issued a proclamation asking for 20,000 more troops. This is by far the best way to win. By sending more troops we show the insurgents that their battle of attrition will be fought head on and a head on fight with the US military is a losing one. If we withdraw, we give the insurgents breathing room and little restriction in trafficking what resources they need to do even more harm. Fulfilling the insurgents desires is disgusting. In addition, this could lead to the impression that we have betrayed the Iraqi public. This will leave them to be easily shaped against us.

*Win the Battle of Attrition
With the massive reinforcing of our military we will boost our presence in Iraq and directly fight on the front the insurgents have been winning on, long-term determination. Also, the public will see that the insurgents are indeed not having the desired effects and this results in a loss of support for the insurgency. Finally, they will dissolve and hopefully complete security can be attained. This is easier said then done as troops are going to continue to take casualties. We must grin and bear it. United, America can never be broken.

*Train and equip the Iraqi Military
How would a new Iraq exist for very long without a standing army? We need to continue to train and also realize that we cannot create a brand new army overnight. In addition to fighting, our soldiers are graciously training these brave men to fight for their country. By critizing the Iraqi military who put their lives on the line everyday we only hurt their development. After several successes, this young fighting force will gain a confidence that may well blossom into a great military might.

*No concessions
By allowing former Baathists a place in the new government, we signal to the people that we really haven't created a regime change. We need to staunchly deny any concession to these former Baathists and also to any sponsors of insurgency. While they may ask for such concessions, giving into their requests is like paying a ransom for kidnappings. In the past, we did not pay these bargains and eventually the insurgents were forced to adopt new tactics. Appeasement to violence only leads to more violence, i.e Hitler. By denying the scum a second chance we show that we can be a reliable ally to the Iraqis with good intentions.

*Take some, even if limited, action against Iran

While I will not display a full-fledged opinion on the Iranian situation now, I can say that Iran is a HUGE problem to the developments in Iraq. According to documents intercepted by the US military, The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and Intelligence collaborated with the Syrian government for the insurgency and destabilization process in the postwar Iraq. They have trafficked and recruited tons of unnamed terrorists into Iraq. By eliminating this supply line we can choke the life out of the insurgency. Not to mention all the other problems associated with the Iran hellhole.

*NO arbitrary deadline/timeline

This absolutely does no good. The most it would do is appease some of America's oblivious populace that do not understand how to attain victory. By doing this we fulfill a goal of the milita and we allow the insurgency to set their own timetables and bide their time so that they no longer must fight the US troops.

These steps must be taken in order for success in Iraq.

These are not easy to implement but we must stand our ground and take a couple off the chin. Who are we, France?