The Loss of Honor and Strength

In an unfortunate turn of events, 15 U.K. servicemen have been captured by Iranian forces in the Persian gulf. It is certainly unfortunate because given the current tension between Iran and the West, an incident such as this one can cause the situation to boil over to full blown military conflict. Although the Iranians claim the U.K. naval and marine personnel had strayed into their territorial waters, the U.K. and Iraqi eyewitness accounts place the soldiers in Iraqi territorial waters. Regardless of the exact location of the U.K. personnel, it is clear Iran intends to use this as an opportunity for leverage in its ongoing debate with the U.N. and to further gain Arab sympathy by portraying the soldiers as Western invaders.

What is totally unexplainable is the reaction that the U.K. is having to this event. Oh boy, they are mad. Everyone in the U.K. government is really, really mad. They are so mad, they are having meetings. They are meeting each other. They met the Iranian ambassador, twice even! They are threatening that they are going to have a third meeting with the Iranian ambassador. Tony Blair has stated this situation is totally unacceptable. I am sure the Iranians are trembling in their pants!

So the big question is, when did Western nations turn into the school yard nerd that gets pushed around and bullied constantly? At least the U.S., to some extent, got out of the vicious cycle of appeasement and attacked a completely belligerent country. It took an appalling 12 years of Saddam Hussein giving the U.N. the finger until finally the U.S. took care of him. Unfortunately, the back bone of the American people has wained and the democrats are gaining control. It looks like appeasement is going to be fully in fashion by 2008.

What the West continually fails to understand about the Arab and Persian world is the concept of "honor and strength". The fear for the Iranian leadership is not equated at all with the consequences of their actions (as we in the West would think). Their fear lies in coming out of this situation looking like a fool and being weak. They will commit suicide as long as, according to their beliefs, it was honorable and they demonstrated they were strong. It is so deeply ingrained into middle-eastern society to such and extent that diplomatic processes that work fine in western culture, fail to progress anything through a framework of negotiation.

So when the U.N. slaps another round of sanctions on Iran, they do not respond by thinking "Woops, that nuclear program of ours sure has had some bad consequences. Let's rethink this". It is more like, "Those A-holes in the U.N. are trying to make us look like fools. Let's do something else to show them how strong we are". The fallacy here is that we are trying to shove Western logic into the mind of Arab and Persian society. It's the old square peg into a round hole conundrum.

Therefore, what should be done is that the West needs to take the same position of maintaining "honor and strength". This is the only way middle-eastern countries will arrive at some level of respect for the West. For example, the proper response that the U.K. should take would be in the form of an immediate ultimatum. I would suggest chopping the Iranian ambassadors head off and mailing it to Iran - it is horribly gruesome, but this is the type of society that you are dealing with. They will laugh at the U.K. if Tony Blair picks up the phone to say, "Can we please have our soldiers back". The ambassador's head followed by aerial bombardment of Tehran will go much farther in achieving an ultimate peaceful agreement. The Iranians would actually respect the U.K. more for an act such as the one I propose.

I have written this before that the West needs to deal with belligerent nations driven by Islamic fundamentalism the same way that someone trains a dog. You beat them over and over again until the behave themselves. In the end of the day, the dog respects you all the more for the discipline that you dished out. I only wish the Brits would role up a newspaper and start smacking the Iranian leadership as soon as possible. If not, the perception that the West has neither honor nor strength will continue to encourage those that wish for the West death and destruction.

Next on the Hit List?

In the never ending battle of the liberal left to continually drive panic into the hearts of Americans, a common question raised is if Syria and Iran are going to be the next preemptive war targets of the U.S.? This question is posed in such a manner which implies that Syria and Iran are peace loving innocent countries. The reality of the matter is that Syria and Iran have been at war with the U.S. for a very long time. One might mark the start of the Iranian/U.S. conflict in 1979 with the Iranian hostage crisis. Syria is a long supporter of terror and as such, an enemy state as far as the U.S. is concerned. These are not peace loving innocent countries. They are countries led by Islamic fundamentalist regimes dead set on establishing an Islamic caliphate throughout the world. Just because armies have not engaged in direct conflict does not mean that a state of war does not already existed between the U.S. and these nations.

It continually saddens me to read articles which blatantly contradict facts and distort the truth with the goal to portray the U.S. and George Bush in particular as some rampant cowboy, attacking countries randomly in order to achieve mythical world domination. These opinions come from those that do not see us at war at all. In their twisted logic, the U.S. brought 9/11 upon itself. Terrorism is justified and when the U.S. fights back, that is what is wrong in the world. Certainly not the peace loving jihadist who blows himself up for a delusional cause; he is a freaking hero to the liberal left.

The continual non-sense from left wingers is unfortunate. Especially since major media outlets support the same views. You will never see an essay like this in the New York Times. What you tend to see are the following types of statements (following are quotes from http://www.helium.com/):

"Mr. Bush appears to thrive on war, killing and the loss of respect he has brought to this nation."

"We have added fuel to the fire by continuing to occupy a Muslim country under false pretenses."

...and then the usual one-off shots such as; bush lied, halliburton, poor disenfranchised muslim, Israel as an apartheid state (Thanks for that one Jim Carter!), no WMDs in Iraq, blah blah blah!

It's all the same and stems from a visceral hate of the U.S. fueled by the left's inability to say that we stand on a moral high ground vs. terrorism and islamic fundamentalism. The left can never bring themselves to say that the U.S. is absolutely correct and the terrorists are wrong. Liberalism, through its fallacy of trying to be all inclusive and understanding, fails to recognize that there are people around the world that hate you simply for being you. Together, U.S. citizens are the infidels, the enemy of Islam. Their is no negotiation, no understanding, no dialog that is going to change a fundamental law of Islam. That would be like asking Christians to alter the concept of Jesus being the son of God. No negotiation will allow people to arrive to some type of middle ground. It simply will never happen.

Now there are those that will say with respect to Syria and Iran that "we should reach out to them diplomatically and elicit their help in creating a stable Iraq." It is this kind of stupidity which is all the evidence one needs to recognize that a liberal should never be put in charge of foreign diplomacy. I would sooner "reach out" my hand into a lion's cage. At least one can expect the same result when they reach out to Syria and Iran; you would be missing a hand sooner or later.

But lets circle back to panic button that the left is now pushing with respect to new preemptive targets. Is the U.S. headed for an inevitable war with Syria and Iran? We are not headed for one, we are already in one and have been for a long time. Those of you that were not aware of this must have been asleep for the last 2 decades. I hate to give you an uncomfortable awakening but I must write it as I see it.

Impeach Yourself

To the people that maintain the ridiculous position that George Bush should be impeached, I ask how are things in fantasy land? What is it like to believe in the tooth fairy? I ask this because the basis that they use for the impeachment of George Bush is so far from the truth, the arguments they use are the stuff of legends and fantasy. They live within an eternal fog, blinded by concepts of conservative conspiracy, domination of oil assets, and U.S. desire for global empire. If they would only come up for air once in a while and take a fair look at the world, they might glimpse how wrong they are.

The common diatribe goes something like the following:

George Bush "was just as certain that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and was about to unleash a nuclear attack on Israel." (quote from Bruce A. Gorcyca, www.helium.com).

There was never a claim of any nuclear attack, that is an outright lie.

"and that the Iraqis were linked to Al Qaeda and the events of 911. On all issues, his wisdom and knowledge proved to be certainly wrong."

George Bush never claimed that this was his wisdom. He received reports from the CIA, MI6 (United Kingdom), and intelligence services of France and Russia. Any leader receiving reports not only from U.S. intelligence sources but internationally, if he had not acted, in retrospect, would have been summarily hanged for incompetence. It does not matter one iota what we found after the war. George Bush acted according to the best intelligence of the time and did what the American people should expect of a competent leader. The anti-Bush camp would most likely have preferred a Bill Clintonesque strategy of checking poll numbers and returning to the UN for more meetings to decide on new economic sanctions against Iraq (meaning, to really decide how the politicians could embezzle more money from another oil for food program!).

One can almost feel the boiling anger when the liberal left writes "Less than a decade ago, millions of Americans demanded impeachment of President Clinton for having an affair with an intern. No innocent civilians and children were killed..." I beg to differ. It is arguable that President Clinton was so distracted by his late night antics in the oval office, that he failed to fight terror. Clinton admitted to this failure himself in a recent interview (although he does not admit to being distracted, rather that he gave it his best shot, but failed). I put it to all liberals, the deaths resulting from the war on terror have resulted because of the growth and strength of terrorist organizations which occurred throughout the 1990s. This was under President Clinton's watch, not George Bush's. Just as Ronald Reagan had to come into the White House to clean up the huge mess left by Jimmy Carter, so to George Bush has been dealing with a mess that Clinton should have been working on since 1994.

Those that characterize the Iraqi war as a fiasco are simply the same people that want the U.S. to lose. They fail to see anything positive resulting from the war, being spoon fed by the liberal left only negative media stories. What about a world with no more Saddam Hussein? What about the serious improvement in Iraqi infrastructure? What about the new democratic Iraqi government? What about Iraqi elections? All these things are ignored for it is the will of liberals to see the U.S. fail, to see the strategy of a conservative president falter at the hands of terrorists. If they would only take a look around, they might realize they are siding with the enemy. Impeaching George Bush is not the way to go, in the end they should just go impeach themselves.

Dear George

Dear President Bush,

I know that these are difficult days for you. With the democratic takeover of the house, it must not be easy. I am here to remind you to be strong and please, stay true to the just and moral path in which you believe in. It is the correct path. Whether we are discussing Iraq strategy or economic policy, be true to your beliefs and the path of conservatism. It is the way which will lead to continued prosperity for Americans that choose to take advantage of the great opportunity afforded to its citizens (and also non-citizens) that live in our country. It is the way which will lead to security for our nation, peace through victory, peace through destruction of our country's enemies.

I have been hearing whispers, merely murmurs maybe? The setting of dates to end the Iraqi conflict. The rolling back of the payroll tax. Rule changes in the house, commissions to be set up, investigations and such. Don't let it happen, Mr. President. The Democrats preach bipartisanship, but they don't mean it. They only preach bipartisanship when it serves to get them votes. Now that they have power, the will not for one second let you shine and try to block you from serving your country in the manner that a President should.

I know things are hard. For 6 years the press has hounded you; called you names and questioned your ability to lead. I don't know anyone who could have handled it the way you have. The curses and the insults. Being blamed for everything from terrorism to global warming. It has been a hard road, but at every turn you held your optimism and more importantly, your conservatism, above the jibes and insults. You knew your path was true and it gave many Americans hope.

So now I urge you, George, please do not give in now. Do not give way to Iraq, future needs for action in Iran, the overall strategy in the war on terror and conservative domestic policy. The Democrats have the congress but you are still our President. Don't be fooled by talk of bipartisanship, the Democrats don't play nice. They never have and they never will.
In closing, over the years there has been way too much negativity written about you. I will in these final lines write something positive. Thank you for being the man that this country needed in our times of trouble. Thank you for having a vision for the future and sharing that vision with the people who were willing to see it. Thank you for your service to this great nation. I do not know where we would be today without you. I remain,

Sincerely,

Joey Goze

To Pre-empt or Not to Pre-empt, That is the Question

In weighing in on the question of whether or not to attack Iran first, prior to its aquisition of nuclear weapons, there are many points to consider. The cost of lives versus the cost of not acting. The long term consequences of attacking or not attacking. In this, it is with a heavy heart that I would have to support a full attack of Iran. There are a number of reasons to justify this as will be shown here.

Let us consider the current Iranian leadership. The prime minister of Iran is a religious fanatic bent on bringing in the Islamic version of a messianic era. He has been quoted on this point several times. Without hesitation, he believes that to bring about this era of Islamic rule, he must initiate a world war. His current conventional weapons can not be used to this end. He requires a nuclear weapon and with such, he would start his messianic era war.

Moreover, he is the only leader in recent memory that has stood up to the world and stated that another sovereign state should be wiped off the map (i.e., Israel) and that Europe and the U.S. would be next. These are not the words of a government that is seeking nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. These are words of threat that indicate well what Iran's intentions would be if they gain access to a nuclear weapon.

In this, we see the price we are going to have to pay for inaction now. Sure, we could not attack, and things would remain in the realm of arguments at the U.N., at least for a while. Iran will continue its clandestine efforts and no one will be the wiser. Then one day, we will wake up to a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv. Israel would surely retaliate with everything it has (I would assume they would also take out Damascus at the same time, two birds with one stone, that sort of thing). The U.S. would most likely get involved and the whole situation would spin quickly out of control. The loss of life in this scenario greatly outweighs what would happen if the U.S. will take care of Iran right now.

In the U.S. attacks first scenario, we can assume the U.S. will knock out most of Iran's capabilities, but not all. Iran might launch a few conventional weapons in Israel's direction, but most likely, Israel will remain out of the fight for diplomatic reasons (a la Gulf War I). Syria will run for cover as she always does. Maybe Hizbollah starts up again on Israel's northern border, but Israel can handle that. There will be loss of life, mostly Iranian, but with smart weapon technology, numbers will remain low compared to the WWIII scenario.

As I write, I see how brutally harsh it is to talk about deaths of people in cold numbers. I wish we as a human race did not have to arrive to such situations in which we must choose courses of action in which people die. Unfortunately, this is life and it is preferable to choose the least offensive course of action. I only hope the choice is made as soon as possible.

Dangers in the Silence Part II

I think the world is collectively still taking its post U.S. Thanksgiving day nap after being overfed with turkey and stuffing. The news flow from current hotbed areas around the world has fallen to a trickle. I continually remain on high alert with respect to Iran and North Korea. Unfortunately, the U.S. seems to be sleeping off the 'Meat Sweats' post Thanksgiving day and the rest of the western world is in about the same state. Europe is generally ahead in the appeasement game, I hate to see that the U.S. is catching up.

Last week, Iran announced the incorporation of even more centrifuges to its peaceful nuclear program. I thought they were in violation of U.N. and I.A.E.A. commitments? Surely, sanctions are not only in order, they would have already been applied. But no, wake up, that would only happen in the world of logic and order. The reality is that the U.N. still has done nothing. Iran is continually lying to the world about its peaceful intent while nothing is done to deter them. Moreover, my beloved United States is not taking action. At least while the Republicans were in control of the congress, I believed there was a chance of action. Not only will the Democrats do nothing, they are already setting timelines for withdrawal from Iraq. Their commitment to defeat is appalling.

And what happened to North Korea? Haven't they been in violation of the treaty they had with the U.S. for a number of years now? What was the response to the U.N. condemnation of the North Korean nuclear test? Kim Jong-Il flipped the western world the bird and went back to enjoying his comprehensive porno collection. Our response to this situation along with Iran is teaching the bad guys one thing only; that you can break the rules and get away with it. No one today has the guts to stand up against evil.

In June of this year, I wrote, "The Islamo-fascist and commi regimes have, like a dog, smelled our fear and pounced all over it. It is now up to us to roll up a newspaper and smack that dog on the nose over and over again until they stop shitting in our living room. When these regimes go silent, it is those times that I fear the most." Now a much more dangerous thing has happened; the Iranians and North Koreans are doing the talking but it is the West that has gone silent. I did not realize that it was this event that I feared even more.

Virginia and the Future of the World

It is a sad sad day that I take pen to paper following the Democrat's victory in the recent U.S. elections. I here and now mark the day that the world wide Jihad can proclaim victory and that it all came down to a decision that the backward ass state of Virginia made by electing a closet homosexual/pedophile to the U.S. senate. Thank you Virgina; you handed the control of the senate (the house was already lost) to the political party committed to losing the war on terror, to appeasing our enemies, to damning our country to mediocrity and to return us to a land of moral relativism.

Let us consider the consequences of the Democratic control of the congress. Certainly, George Bush will not be able to prosecute his war on terror in a manner that drives toward victory. To the Democrats, G.W. is the devil and they will never allow him to approach anything close to a victory. Why would they let him do anything that would make him look good or give the republican party an advantage again? The war on terror is a long and drawn out process that the Democrats will not prosecute because they have no stomach to do what is morally correct. They will cut G.W. off at the ankles and that will be that. It is over, terrorists win.

Moreover, from Lebanon to North Korea, the Middle East and the Far East knows what the Democrats represent. The anti-americans are dancing in the streets. Israel woke up on Nov. 8th to the sickening reality that they are once again, the lone and morally rightous entity in the Middle East. The Democrats will not go to battle, not for Israel in any of its direct conflicts nor with the strategically critical ones, such as Iran. The Democrats will run to the U.N . and play games with international diplomacy all for naught. What was just last week, a place for hope, for me, is now a sea of despair.

The European left more than ever is now on the democrat's band wagon. It only took one day for a German court to bring war crime charges against Donald Rumsfled. This is only the beginning. The world has somehow become a place where terrorists are the oppressed and just; the morally and ethically correct have become the oppressors and evil. Spain has already flipped governments, France never was on the side of the right and England will soon lose a strong supporter of the war on terror in Tony Blair.

The outlook is quite grim. I predict the next two years will entail an emboldened Jihad movement sweeping the Middle East and Europe. Major attacks will occur in 2007 and 2008 and the U.S. reponse to these attacks will take on the form of the 'Clintonesque' responses of the 90's; only encouraging the global Jihad to continue. The Iranian situation will come to a head, being a much more dangerous sitiuation, since no true leader will have the moral strength to wipe out that modern day third reich off the map.

In my humble opinion, the state of Virginia damned us all. We can only hope that within two years, they realize the error of their ways and help return the U.S. to the path of the strong and the right. If not, we may be at the head of a very dark and dangerous path.