Thursday, April 08, 2010

Obama Signs Nuclear Deal with Russia. Russia has Far Larger Problems.



Evaluating the U.S.-Russia Nuclear Deal

By KEITH B. PAYNE WSJ

Today President Obama will sign a new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia. Official Washington is already celebrating the so-called New START Treaty in the belief that it reduces forces below the 2002 Moscow Treaty levels and "resets" U.S.-Russian relations in the direction of greater cooperation. But the new treaty—whose actual text and accompanying legal documents were not released before the signing ceremony in Prague—may not accomplish these goals.

The administration's "fact sheet," for example, claims that the treaty will reduce the number of strategic weapons to 1,550, 30% lower than the 2002 treaty. But New START has special counting rules.

For example, there are reportedly 76 Russian strategic bombers, and each one apparently can carry from six to 16 nuclear weapons (bombs and cruise missiles). Nevertheless, and unlike under the Moscow Treaty, these many hundreds of nuclear weapons would count as only 76 toward the 1,550 ceiling. Consequently, the New START Treaty includes the potential for a large increase in the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons, not a reduction.

The administration claims, as Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher stated emphatically on March 29, that "There is no limit or constraint on what the United States can do with its missile defense systems . . . definitely, positively, and no way, no how . . ." Yet our Russian negotiating partners describe New START's constraints on missile defenses quite differently.

On March 30, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in a press conference after the G-8 foreign ministers meeting in Canada that there are obligations regarding missile defense in the treaty text and the accompanying interpretive texts that constitute "a legally binding package." He also stated at a press conference in Moscow on March 26 that "The treaty is signed against the backdrop of particular levels of strategic defensive systems. A change of these levels will give each side the right to consider its further participation in the reduction of strategic offensive armaments." Kremlin National Security Council Secretary Sergei Prikhodko told journalists in Moscow on April 2 that "The United States pledged not to remodel launchers of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-based ballistic missiles for firing interceptor missiles and vice versa."

The New START restrictions on missile defense as described by Russian officials could harm U.S. security in the future. For example, if the U.S. must increase its strategic missile defenses rapidly in response to now-unforeseen threat developments, one of the few options available could be to use Minuteman silo launchers for interceptors, either at California's Vandenberg Air Force Base or empty operational silos elsewhere. Yet, if the Russian description of New START is correct, doing so would be prohibited and the launchers themselves probably will be eliminated to meet the treaty's limitation on launchers. U.S. officials' assurances and Russian descriptions cannot both be true.

Another claim for New START is that possible concerns about the limitations on U.S. forces must be balanced against the useful limits on Russian forces. Yes, this argument goes, the U.S. will have to reduce the number of its strategic delivery vehicles—silos, submarine tubes and bombers—but in the bargain it will get the benefit of like Russian reductions.

This sounds reasonable. According to virtually all Russian sources, however, New START's agreed ceiling on strategic nuclear delivery vehicles will not require Russia to give up anything not already bound for its scrap heap.

The aging of its old Cold War arsenal and the pace of its strategic nuclear force modernization program means that Russia will remain under the New START ceiling of 700 deployed launchers with or without a new treaty. Whatever the benefit to the U.S. agreement to reduce its operational strategic force launchers, it is not to gain reciprocal Russian reductions. No such reciprocity is involved.

Some hope that New START's amicable "reset" in U.S.-Russian relations will inspire Russian help with other issues, such as the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, where they have been less than forthcoming. This is a vain hope, as is demonstrated by the past 40 years of strategic-arms control: Innovative strategic force agreements and reductions follow improvements in general political relations. They do not lead to them.

Finally, for many the great locus of concern about Russian nuclear weapons lies in its large arsenal of tactical (i.e., short-range) nuclear weapons. According to U.S. officials, Russia has a 10-to-one numeric advantage. In 2002, then Sens. Joe Biden and John Kerry, and the current White House Science Adviser, John Holdren, expressed great concern that the Bush administration's Moscow Treaty did not limit Russian tactical forces. One might expect, therefore, that New START would do so; but the Russians apparently were adamant about excluding tactical nuclear weapons from New START.

This omission is significant. The Russians are now more explicit and threatening about tactical nuclear war-fighting including in regional conflicts. Yet we still have no limitations on Russia's tactical nuclear arsenal. The problem may now be more severe than in 2002, but concern seems curiously to have eased.

This brief review is based on the many open descriptions of the treaty by U.S. and Russian officials. Given the apparent inconsistencies on such basic matters as whether the treaty requires weapon reductions or allows increases, or whether missile defenses are limited or untouched, the Senate will have to exercise exceptional care in reviewing the actual language of the treaty documents before drawing conclusions about their content.

Mr. Payne is head of the department of defense and strategic studies at Missouri State University, and a member of congressional Strategic Posture Commission.


Kyrgyzstan, former Soviet Republic falls

BISHKEK, Kyrgyzstan — An opposition coalition in Kyrgyzstan proclaimed an interim government Thursday in the wake of clashes that left dozens dead nationwide, and said it would rule for six months before calling new elections.
Opposition leader Roza Otunbayeva said she would head the interim government, and that the parliament was dissolved. She said the new government controlled four of Kyrgyzstan's seven provinces in the Central Asian nation, which is home to a key U.S. military base that the opposition has said it wants to close.

Otunbayeva urged President Kurmanbek Bakiyev to resign after he fled the capital amid violent clashes that started on Tuesday. Thousands of protesters have clashed with security forces throughout the country, driving out local governments and on Thursday seizing government headquarters in the capital.

"His business in Kyrgyzstan is finished," she said, adding that Bakiyev has fled for the central Jalal-Abad region, where he is trying to consolidate his supporters.

Bombers Kill Policemen in Russia
By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ
Published: April 5, 2010

MOSCOW — A suicide bomber killed at least two police officers in the restive North Caucasus region of Russia on Monday, officials said, the latest in a spate of such attacks, including a double bombing on the Moscow subway, that have killed more than 50 people in the last week.

In Monday’s attack, in Ingushetia, a mostly Muslim region bordering Chechnya, a bomber blew himself up next to a police car in the town of Karabulak, a statement on the Web site of the Prosecutor General’s Investigative Committee said.






127 comments:

  1. This is, as usual, all about Obama, his massive ego and does nothing to improve US security.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The treaty helps Russian politician, Medvedev in his power play against Putin. If I heard correctly, Obama got nothing from Russia on Iranian sanctions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The press conference is almost incomprehensible with simultaneous translations drowning each other out.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The message being sent to non-nuclear nations is that if you get nuclear weapons, you are in the upper tier of nations that get equal treatment with the US.

    There is a great danger that this treaty will endanger US attempts to develop effective missile defense in exchange for little from the Russians.

    The test is Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ... The test is Iran ...

    What do you mean by that, Deuce?

    That test was given, oh my, back in 2003. We failed it, then.

    The Brits were tested, what now, three years ago, Mr Blair, he failed too, in my estimate.

    If the US is given a chance for a "do over" with regards Iranian nuclear ambitions, I would be surprised. Usually those big windows of opportunity, once closed, stay that way.

    It is to bad that Mr Bush and his chief adviser knew more about getting draft deferments than they did about taking the battle to the enemy.

    Old draft dodgers never died, they became "conservatives".

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh, and Deuce, get up to speed as to what endangers the US.

    It is not missiles. I have been listening for years now, since the dawn of the new millennium.

    The danger to the US is from border bandits in turbans, Islamic terrorists with box cutters.

    To combat this existential threat we have dispatched not one, but two Armies to the Asian sub-continent. Where they have been killing folk that do not present a real threat to our forces.

    But the test, of course, is Iran.

    Which has no missile that can reach US, but can hit either of our deployed Armies. Providing Iran with targets of opportunity, for the missiles and weaponry they already have, making US too clever by half.

    ReplyDelete
  7. May the sunshine bring you great happiness and warm feet.

    Have a wonderful day

    ReplyDelete
  8. The test IS iran, due to the very nature of thier regime. DR acts like an agent of iran with his constant misdirection on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Iran does not pose a military threat, to the homeland of the United States, certainly not with missiles.

    ReplyDelete
  11. No misdirection on Iran.

    The failure of the US to stop International funding of infrastructure projects can be traced directly to Mr Bush/Cheney. Water treatment facilities funded by US through the Whirled Bank come first to mind, exemplify US failures in applying any sanction worthy of the effort, with regards Iran.

    What course should or even could be taken, now?

    Another expanded land war?

    A limited air war, with Iran, would be impossible to contain.

    ReplyDelete
  12. With regards military action against Iran, guess I side with the JCOS, it is not a war we could win, either quickly or decisively.

    Our experience in both Iraq and Afghanistan prove the JCOS are correct, sorry to say.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The nature of the regime, in Iran, has been unchanged since the Carter Administration.

    Guess that means that RWR, GHWB, WJC, GWB and BHO have all failed in their mission to make US secure, from the Iranian regime.

    All those trillions of dollars, wasted, as we have failed the Iranian test, for thirty years.

    allen's entire tenure as a Federal socialist, a life long career spent as a servant of the people. Quite a long history of failure to be laid at the Resolute desk, now.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Iran does not pose a military threat, to the homeland of the United State"

    the data you choose to analyse says NOT YET. graph the data yourself and see where this is going if you need to. technology has an exponentaility feature to it. you are kind of silly to ignore the future but one should never question DR's patriotism.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I do not dispute the trend line.

    I expect that the Iranians will gain a nuclear weapon capacity.

    I do not see what the US can do, about that, now.

    Please, lay out a VIABLE action plan.
    One that does not include a spike in oil prices that would devastate the US and Whirled economies.

    ReplyDelete
  16. A plan that would well serve the 300 million plus US residents.

    There has been an existental nuclear threat to the US, for my entire lifetime.

    That is a continued given, a certainty of life. There are threats.

    Learn to prioritize.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The MAD option, now for use only against other nuclear powers, has served US well, since Mr Truman was President.

    It will work with regards the Iranians, as well.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Cutting off modernization of our aging nuke arsenal may render
    MAD, Moot.
    ...as we become the ONLY nuclear power not engaged in research and modernization.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Last year we seemed to have a little "expansion" going on in Feb, only to have it fall apart in March. Are we looking at a similar scenario this year. I don't know, but

    the economic news out of Europe, and Japan the last couple of days is not good. Is it the higher oil prices kicking in, or is it simply a matter of we have some work yet to do? Probably, a little of both, I imagine.

    Coming within a whisker of destroying the world's economic system does have consequences, you know.

    ReplyDelete
  20. That may well be, doug.

    But is a separate issue from what to do with regards Iran.

    As is the US Air Force's lack of internal security safe guards with regards our existing nuclear arsenal.

    ReplyDelete
  21. in one minute DR went from them not being a threat to counting on MAD. pure politics and misdirection. sole survivor mentality fuels DR's thought process.

    ReplyDelete
  22. by the way, i dont think MAD works as a containment policy.

    ReplyDelete
  23. MAD's brought us half a century of
    "Peace"

    I've been an appreciative fan from day 1.

    ReplyDelete
  24. (while others cowered in fear of nuclear war, I gave thanks to MAD)

    ReplyDelete
  25. "There is a great danger that this treaty will endanger US attempts to develop effective missile defense in exchange for little from the Russians."

    I'm somewhat reluctant to talk about the US' new policy since it kind of came out of the blue (at least for me) and I haven't thought through the ramifications enough. However, from what I have seen printed, it does not appear that the new treaty will affect missile defense at all (at least not legally). What Obama "chooses" to do under the treaty is of course another matter. The promise not to upgrade our nuclear capability does bother me since the move has more than just political risk.

    Obviously, Obama has launched a new way forward in our foreign policy. Is it wrong? Hard to say. Are there risks? There have been risks since Russia got their first A-bomb. However, I would only caution that the results of Obama's new direction be judged in comparison with the effectiveness of the policies that proceeded it.

    I have to agree with rat. Iran is a done deal. They will have their bomb. If not this year, next. If not next year, in five years. Best start dealing with the political ramifications of it.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  26. "As a typical undergrad, Obama loves to talk, and loves to talk about peace and justice. You know, the really important things. His new nuclear policy is right out of a college bull session: “Why don’t we just promise not to use them?” Nukes are bad, ugly things. Doesn’t everyone agree that the world would be better off without them?

    Well, grownups don’t necessarily agree. It all depends how you get there, and what the others do along the way. We do have real enemies, but our undergrad-president understands their ire and shares their pain. It’s up to us to make things right. And so he apologizes, worrying more about our nukes (about which he has done something) than Iran’s (we haven’t done a thing).

    Finally, he doesn’t seem to realize what a mess he’s making. And when he gets his grades, he blames the professors (we the people, in this case) for being unfair.

    That’s the sort we’ve been graduating for a generation or more, isn’t it? Did you really think we’d never get one as president?
    "

    - Ledeen

    ReplyDelete
  27. "(while others cowered in fear of nuclear war, I gave thanks to MAD)"

    Was that MAD the policy or MAD the magazine Doug?

    It's always a little hard to tell with you. Not sure if your talking foreign policy or a coping device.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  28. That's the sort we've been graduating for 2,000 yrs. It's just that most countries don't elect them President unless they "grow up" a bit after College.

    ReplyDelete
  29. ""As a typical undergrad, Obama loves to talk, and loves to talk about peace and justice. You know, the really important things. His new nuclear policy is right out of a college bull session: “Why don’t we just promise not to use them?” Nukes are bad, ugly things. Doesn’t everyone agree that the world would be better off without them?"

    Now Ledeen is knocking peace and justice?

    Frankly, what does Obama (or us) lose by laying out openly what has been our policy right along. The chance of any country openly using nukes against another country except by accident or subtrefuge (with third party surrogates) is slim to none. Nothing Obama has said will change that. MAD still exists.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  30. I derived pleasure from both Quirk:

    MAD gave me the feeling of security such that I could experience the serial bliss of a new issue of MAD Magazine.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Nothing Obama has said will change that. MAD still exists."
    ---
    Wrong.
    Consigning us to an overage, deteriorating, unreliable, nuclear arsenal, diminishes our credibility.

    Plus, any post-sophomore knows it's best to keep em guessin.

    ReplyDelete
  32. keep 'em guessing eh? How'd that work out for Saddam?

    ReplyDelete
  33. "This brief review is based on the many open descriptions of the treaty by U.S. and Russian officials. Given the apparent inconsistencies on such basic matters as whether the treaty requires weapon reductions or allows increases, or whether missile defenses are limited or untouched, the Senate will have to exercise exceptional care in reviewing the actual language of the treaty documents before drawing conclusions about their content."

    Mr. Payne is saying I don't know shit but, from rumors I've heard, I'm worried.



    .

    ReplyDelete
  34. "MAD gave me the feeling of security such that I could experience the serial bliss of a new issue of MAD Magazine."

    Alfred E. Neuman "what me worry". you may have cracked the code of the true meaning of MAD ;^)

    ReplyDelete
  35. "keep 'em guessing eh? How'd that work out for Saddam?"
    ---
    Saddam was bluffing.

    When we had enuff nukes to turn any country into glass, everyone understood, we held the Aces.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Consigning us to an overage, deteriorating, unreliable, nuclear arsenal, diminishes our credibility."

    That's the part I don't get. I see no value in it at all.

    However, capability is different than credibility.



    .

    ReplyDelete
  37. Alfred was my childhood hero,
    my muse,
    my guide through life.

    ReplyDelete
  38. If everyone understood then nobody was guessing now where they? You don't want guessing and bluff calls when dealing with a possible nuclear exchange.

    ReplyDelete
  39. You see see no value in WHAT, Quirk?

    ReplyDelete
  40. It worked every decade it was tried, Ash.

    Most folk choose not to be turned into...
    Ash

    ReplyDelete
  41. I see no value in Obama committing not to continue upgrading our nuclear arsenal.

    It makes no sense.

    Even as a token assurance of our peaceful intent it must look pretty stupid to a cynical world.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  42. Blogger Quirk said...

    "I see no value in Obama committing not to continue upgrading our nuclear arsenal."

    Off the top of my head two values spring to mind - 1. the cost savings 2. mitigation of the arms race.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Quirk said...
    "I see no value in Obama committing not to continue upgrading our nuclear arsenal.

    It makes no sense.

    Even as a token assurance of our peaceful intent it must look pretty stupid to a cynical world.
    "

    Amen

    Naturally, Ash thinks that's just great.

    ReplyDelete
  44. That's UNILATERAL mitigation of the arms race.

    ...but of course you and BHO already know that.

    The true evil of the position.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Oh, and Deuce, get up to speed as to what endangers the US.

    Oh, Rat, that was my point in the two articles in the post about Islamic terrorism in Russia.

    I do not dismiss Islamic terrorism at all . I do believe that they are relevant to missile defense, more so than during the Cold War.

    Being an ex cold warrior with deep experience in the monitoring and analysis of Soviet and Chinese missile capabilities, I developed a shared assumption and belief of a rational adversary. That assumption gave way to a policy MAD, which is based on the belief that both sides had an equal love for life and fear and loathing of death.

    The absurdity of Obama, the Ideologue, dismissing the concept of "Islamic Terrorism" demonstrates his total ineptitude at assessing the current threat to US security.

    Missile defense is the only defense against an irrational missile armed player. That is the Islamic missile threat to the US, regardless of who manufactures the missile.

    No US President should accept any deal and no Congress should approve any deal that puts any restraint on US missile defense.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Tiger Woods and Nike are putting Mark Sanford to shame.

    Dead Father Commercial

    SICK

    ReplyDelete
  47. "Off the top of my head two values spring to mind - 1. the cost savings 2. mitigation of the arms race."


    Cut it out Ash. You're killing me.

    :)
    :)


    .

    ReplyDelete
  48. "No US President should accept any deal and no Congress should approve any deal that puts any restraint on US missile defense."
    ---
    Amen
    Again

    ReplyDelete
  49. Mitigate your mirth, Quirk.
    Ash is a deep thinker.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Am I the only human certain that Tiger has Jumped the Shark?

    ReplyDelete
  51. For Red on the previous post:

    John C. Calhoun? Hardly, when it comes to slavery.

    Calhoun was an ardent supporter of slavery. I do not recall citing any fondeness for such sentiment.

    The US would have been a far more pleasant place had it used indentured servants instead of slaves.

    Slavery was possible because slaves were cheap and accesible in Africa. Africans delighted in enslaving their enemies and selling them to the highest biddder.

    Out of 200,000 generations of human experience, slavery is effectively missing from the last 6 or 7.

    199,993 generations makes for a tradition, flawed that is was.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Then again,
    even some here still sing the praises of our first celebrity Muslim Draft Resister:

    Muhammed Ali

    aka

    Cassius Clay

    ReplyDelete
  53. Nike Tiger Wood's Father Commercial

    TORONTO, Ont. - Nike has begun airing a television commercial Wednesday featuring Tiger Woods and the voice of his late father, in an edgy move that exposes ...

    ReplyDelete
  54. Woods is a fucking asshole.

    Not because he got laid. He's an asshole for bringing his dead father into this mess just to make $ Million number 967 by selling a few extra pairs of tennis shoes.

    Whatta fuckin putz.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I would have probably tuned in to watch him this weekend, but, now, I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  56. There's also the overwhelming odds that he could have inflicted terminal diseases upon the mother of his children.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Classy move to bed his neighbor's 21 yr old dotter, too.

    Promoting Community Comity.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Isn't that an American Ideal - the girl next door?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Naw, Ash,
    You're the American ideal:

    A Royal Asshole to fuck in the...
    but I repeat myself.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Here is the line from the White House to Iran, after the 12,000 rockets they gave to Hezbollah are fired at Israel, coupled with the weapons, arms they gave to Hamas and Syria are also fired

    ....“Ahmadinejad, I want to find out what your thinking was, I want to find out what your feelings are and did you learn anything.”

    ReplyDelete
  61. My question is, how many hundreds of millions do you have to have to say, "my wife caught me fucking around, my sponsors dumped me, and it's a bummer; Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go play golf. Wanna come along?"

    "You want me to do WHAT?"

    "Do Rehab cause I Like Pussy? Really? Hand me that 6 iron, will ya?"

    ReplyDelete
  62. coming soon from the Whitehouse to the Israelis and Palestinians?

    "Still, for all of that, a consensus appears to be growing, both within the administration and among outside advisers to the White House, that Mr. Obama will have to consider suggesting a solution to get the two sides moving.

    Such a move is “absolutely not on the table right now,” a senior administration official said, adding that the United States wanted to first see the start of the indirect, American-brokered peace negotiations, which diplomats refer to as “proximity talks.” But the official said those talks would “undoubtedly get mired down, and then you can expect that we would go in with something.”

    What that would be remains up in the air, but most Middle East experts draw the same outline for a peace deal. First, Palestinian officials would have to accept that there would be no right of return for refugees of the 1948 war that established the Israeli state, and for their millions of descendants. Rather, the Palestinians would have to accept some kind of compensation. Second, the two sides would have to share Jerusalem — Palestinians locating their capital in the east and Israelis in the west, and both signing on to some sort of international agreement on how to share the holy sites in the Old City.

    Third, Israel would return to its 1967 borders — before it captured East Jerusalem and the West Bank in the Six-Day War — give or take a few negotiated settlements and territorial swaps. Fourth, the United States or NATO would have to give Israel security guarantees, probably including stationing troops along the Jordan River, to ease Israeli fears that hostile countries could use the Palestinian state as a springboard for attacks. And finally, Arab neighbors like Saudi Arabia would recognize Israel.

    “It’s not rocket science,” said Robert Malley, director of the Middle East Program at the International Crisis Group, the Brussels-based organization that seeks to prevent and resolve deadly conflicts. “And a lot of people who have looked at this have reached the conclusion that the parties won’t reach there on their own. If the U.S. wants it done, it will have to do it.” "

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/world/middleeast/08prexy.html?ref=world

    ReplyDelete
  63. “It’s not rocket science, we need to kick the Jews in the ass and ripe out their collective balls. They are a greedy piece of work and I for one will LOVE to protect the Arabs from them,” said Robert Malley, director of the Middle East Program at the International Crisis Group, the Brussels-based organization that seeks to make the murder of Jews legal and a right of passage for not just people of the islamic faith. “And a lot of people who have looked at this have reached the conclusion that the Israelis need to be beaten by the USA since they won’t reach there on their own. If the U.S. wants it done, it will have to do it.” "

    ReplyDelete
  64. For Blue, also from the previous post:

    Sorry, it struck me as an utterly weasely description. And I think myself reasonably capable in the department of weasely.

    It wasn't merely "flawed" - it was a moral abomination and profound contradiction of radical founding principles.

    That it flourished through much of human history and sadly continues in some places, does not alter its reprehensible character and warping effect within a nation devoted to individual sovereignty and equality under the law.

    Perhaps it's better to remark that it was *itself* a flaw - a tragic one - removed at finally tremendous cost.

    One of my favorite writers on the subject is Harry Jaffa. Perhaps it's time to drag him off the shelf again.

    Thu Apr 08, 11:40:00 AM EDT

    Yes, Calhoun was a vigorous defender of slavery and the descriptive phrase "our peculiar institution," though not original to him, still stands as one of the most genial characterizations of an abominable practice - an example to euphemisms everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Gotta go with Trish 100% on this one. Well said.

    ReplyDelete
  66. rat said:

    allen's entire tenure as a Federal socialist, a life long career spent as a servant of the people. Quite a long history of failure to be laid at the Resolute desk, now.

    Thu Apr 08, 08:17:00 AM EDT


    You poor delusional man! You KNOW absolutely NOTHING about my life or may career.

    It is such unsubstantiated statements as that above which makes you a laughing stock and a buffoon.

    As to my being a "federal socialist" (whatever that is), better that than you on your best medicated day.

    O, and real men rope grizzly bears. Yes, that is a challenge; now, go rope. And please, please, please: Have someone nearby filming for WikiWacky.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Sorry to hear about your being morally offended by previous abominations.

    "moral abomination" is an interesting term to use for historical behavior. Woman were burned for being witches at times because they were a moral abomination to the authorities.

    Jews were a moral abomination to some offended Christian clerics as were "American savages" and their cultural ways.

    Most generations are morally offended at some acts of previous and succeeding generations.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Before industrialization, slavery was a moral necessity for any country wishing to compete globally and, thereby, counter mercantilist rivals and survive.

    The voices of abolition rose in direct proportion to the degree of industrialization. It was not by accident that England led the way to outlawing the slave trade.

    Of course, throughout Europe many Christian voices critical of slavery were raised over a long period of time. Among those voices were those of numerous Popes and the Quakers.

    We, the morally superior of the present, cannot fathom a world absent its gadgets. Well, cheap manual labor was the only ready substitute to capital in a world without machinery. To survive in such a world, nations did what needed doing, moral qualms aside.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Addendum:

    Now, the dehumanizing, delegitimizing excuses used to justify slavery were an abomination.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Wow. Just...fucking...wow.








    Well, looks like rain.

    And we're going to lose our sweet summertime weather as a result.

    Trish's little cookie crumbles.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I had a couple of guys over today to do some work around the house.

    One from Honduras. Pretty outgoing fellow.

    I asked him if he's homesick. I knew the answer.

    Almost everybody misses home, wherever home is.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Slavery and petroleum deposits have at least one thing in common: Rufus would support both if it was in his interest. As he has said, he could care less about the morality of America's foreign policy in the Middle East, because, among other things, Israel does not have oil.

    See how easy was the break to moral turpitude: If it's good for me, goody, goody.

    Let me get this out of the way now: I will not rummage through the archives to prove the point, because I needn't; it will come up again. Some things are as predictable as tulips in spring.

    ReplyDelete
  73. How many Spaniards bewailed the waste of money and men on the endless fighting in the Netherlands, as English privateers raided with impunity in the West Indies and Pacific? One can hear the argument now, "What do we care about Spanish foreign policy unless it is tied to the gold and silver of the New World? Gold and silver are the life's blood of Spain, without our control inflation will run rampant."

    Doubtless, countless plantation owners of the West Indies felt the same, apart from their concerns being tied to sugar, indigo, timber and tobacco.

    ReplyDelete
  74. All this conflict about roping a black bear is just plain silly.

    Them that want to will, them that can't won't.

    My little girl just chases 'em on foot until she runs 'em up a tree, and then she chucks rocks at 'em until they turn loose of her day pack with dad's camera and her lunch inside.

    ReplyDelete
  75. As well as lacking in oil Israel doesn't occupy the moral high ground either.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Are you a draft dodger from the 70s, Ash?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Ash said...
    As well as lacking in oil Israel doesn't occupy the moral high ground either.

    Thu Apr 08, 04:29:00 PM EDT



    Yes, I can see that from a Muslim point of view. Then, neither does Spain, France, much of Russia, parts of China and India, UK, and Detroit.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Sorry to hear about your being morally offended by previous abominations.

    It should come as no surprise, though, considering her wrath toward Dick Cheney and her opinion of Mark Levin, both great Americans who've endured the stings of a couple of tiny cuts.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Ash said...
    As well as lacking in oil Israel doesn't occupy the moral high ground either.


    Well said Ash... I guess that's why Israel has murdered millions of Arabs and now sits on the majority of arab lands in the middle east...

    Oh that's right, Israel does neither...

    Ash, question, at what point of property theft by the arabs will make you consider that those that squat on 649/650th of the middle east and 20% of the 1/650th are in fact the low ground queens?

    and as for murder, raping and beheadings those arabs out do the entire world....

    once again squatting the fecal world of your moral ground...

    fucking retard

    ReplyDelete
  80. no WiO you are the fucking retard with your constant bleating about moral equivalency - just because the Arabs do bad things doesn't make Israeli actions good.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Ash's African Origin

    Hominid Species Discovered in South Africa


    The new species, Australopithecus sediba, strode upright, but climbed through trees on apelike arms, scientists said

    ReplyDelete
  82. Call it what it is, WIO:

    Fucking Australopithecus sediba.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Woman in Burka go karting in Australia killed when Burka gets caught in the machinery!!!

    ReplyDelete
  84. How anyone can read the Declaration of Independence, and not know that Slavery was a doomed institution in the United States, as in the rest of the Civilized World, is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I suppose you had to be there.

    Historical relativism and historical objectivity are not well understood. The best example I can give is of one involved in extremely difficult and ugly decisions where the consequences to everyone involved are awful.

    You had to be there, wish you wern't and would rather not even talk about it, can't forget it and curse your fate for not.

    ReplyDelete
  86. allen, I know what you have posted, about yourself.

    You were a grunt, humping the hills and vills of the Nam.

    That would have placed you there, as a Marine infantryman, in the 'Nam, no later than 1972.

    Or you'd not have been humping the hills, amigo.

    You have retired, you've claimed, from the Marines, were you were in the medical corps, a dentist as I recall.

    As a retired Marine you are still supping at the Federal trough.

    Add forty years to 1972, and here we are.
    MAYBE forty years is an exaggeration, but 35 years is the least you have spent on the Federal dime.

    Unless your entire life story, as told here at the Elephant Bar, has been a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  87. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  88. As to the Islamic threat and MAD.

    There is no case that can be made that either of the current regimes, in Pakistan or Iran, is irrational.

    None at all.

    Not only have all of the Iranian actions been rational, since the return of the Parisian clerics, and Iran-Contra, but politically the Iranians are ahead, of US, in the region. We put them there.

    With our presence in Iraq combined with our penchant for representative government.

    The Iranians are behaving rationally. Whether or not we are, that could be debated.

    The Pakistani, they were deterred from assisting the Taliban in Afghanistan, by the threat of US air strikes, or so the story was told.

    They are definitely deterred by the Indian nuclear capacity, or there'd be no further turmoil in Kashmir.

    ReplyDelete
  89. DR,

    ...presumptions all...

    ...But if it gets you through the day, hey, glad to help. Just don't forget those meds.

    Habu made one major mistake in my book: He attacked your alleged son's contribution to the Corps and country. As it turns out, you may not have a son. What you do have is a vivid, surreal, sadisitic imagination.

    I could say you are often a liar, but you and others have so cheapened that word that it really has no effect - just SOP.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Ronald W Reagan and his competent staff did not think the Islamoids of Iran were irrational.

    No, those Federals knew that there were folk there in Iran that we could do business with.

    There still are.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Assumptions based upon your statements, allen.

    Good enough for me and perhaps for the multitudes that follow our soap opera, to draw a conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  92. A reasonable and viable conclusion, based upon the life story of allen, as told at the Elephant Bar.

    Either you have spent thirty five plus years as a Federal socialist, being a tax eater your entire career, or you have lied to us, repeatedly.

    Either one works for me.
    You're the type person I think little of, in either case.

    ReplyDelete
  93. DR said,

    You're the type person I think little of, in either case.


    ROFLH...You are such a card!

    ReplyDelete
  94. Oh yeah, I think little of you, have no doubt of that.

    ReplyDelete
  95. desert rat said...
    Oh yeah, I think little of you, have no doubt of that.

    Thu Apr 08, 08:41:00 PM EDT




    Well, then, my friend, why all the ink and encores? You are laughable.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Ash said...
    no WiO you are the fucking retard with your constant bleating about moral equivalency - just because the Arabs do bad things doesn't make Israeli actions good.


    You are correct Ash...

    Israel should cut off all food, water and fuel to gaza at once to earn the position you claim she is..

    Israel should not inform the enemies of her that they are going to attack and be like those that you praise...

    Israel should annex all west bank land and jerusalem and expel all arabs at once, and then they will be equals with the arabs

    Israel should at once cut off all medical treatments for palestinians and then be the moral equal of the arabs..

    til then?

    shut the fuck up

    ReplyDelete
  97. Today, you led off with this:

    allen's entire tenure as a Federal socialist, a life long career spent as a servant of the people. Quite a long history of failure to be laid at the Resolute desk, now.
    Thu Apr 08, 08:17:00


    Yesterday, you led off with this:
    As allen has informed us, repeatedly, no Federal report can be trusted in its veracity.

    No tale that the Federals tell can be believed.

    I read that here, at the Elephant Bar, it must be true.
    Wed Apr 07, 10:04:00 AM EDT


    On the Geraldo thread, you fired first with this:
    He answers, allen, because in his heart he knows I am right.

    His continued responses prove it, as he searches for further justification for his cowardice.
    Tue Apr 06, 12:32:00 AM EDT

    I could go on, but suffice to say, “You would be a liar if you were normal and had a conscience.”

    ReplyDelete
  98. What is "Occupation" said...

    "Ash said...
    no WiO you are the fucking retard with your constant bleating about moral equivalency - just because the Arabs do bad things doesn't make Israeli actions good.


    You are correct Ash..."

    Well, there ya go WiO.

    'Woulda, coulda, shoulda' Yeah, the Isrealis could, would, should, do a lot of things. The fact is they haven't. They are occupying land gained through war and they shouldn't settle it ect. The whole of the rest of world stand against them in their settlement of lands gained through war. The arabs are fuckups fer sure but the Israelis must sleep in the bed they've laid. It seems the US administration is finally growing a spine and bibi needs to decide whether he will be a statesmen or a pol sucking up to a local constituency.





    as to allen, I've not followed his blog confession very closely but my guess is he's currently plying the trade of commercial real estate. Heck, I'd venture he's a wannabe rabbi if not actually one as well as real estate salesman.

    ReplyDelete
  99. ash: They are occupying land gained through war and they shouldn't settle it ect.



    Israel sits on lands it won in a defensive war.... and should settle it...

    I guess ash and the world have one standard for everyone else and another completely different for Israel

    that tells us that you and those that claim israel has no rights to LIBERATED lands won in a defensive war are in fact bigots...

    tell me oh ash...

    name me one other nation that has fought and won land against an enemy seeking it's genocide and RETURNED 99.9% of all lands to those who have started 7 wars?

    your standards suck...

    ReplyDelete
  100. They aren't my standards but rather standards that the world has agreed to live by. Israel is standing alone in this issue and they should be thankful folk aren't talking about rolling back the borders to those bestowed upon them in 1948 and requiring the adherence to the "right of return".

    ReplyDelete
  101. In other words it is a very reasonable compromise to settle at '67 borders with compensation in land for modifications, Palis give up right of return, and a shared Jerusalem (either internationally administered or some other 'co-government')

    ReplyDelete
  102. While the kid wasn't slender the threads to heaven may sure as well be.

    ReplyDelete
  103. and don't forget the Golan Heights, they gotta be returned as well but, BUT, a key factor in all this is WATER and agreements need to be forged/forced on that nasty tricky issue.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Ash said...
    They aren't my standards but rather standards that the world has agreed to live by. Israel is standing alone in this issue and they should be thankful folk aren't talking about rolling back the borders to those bestowed upon them in 1948 and requiring the adherence to the "right of return".


    Actually the world doesnt live by those standards..

    china in tibet

    russia in georgia and ossetia

    england in the faulkins

    turkey, iran, syria, iraq all in kurdistan

    turkey in cyprus

    and the list goes on and on..

    One standard for Israel all other have any standard they want...

    And "folks" are talking about 1948...

    Is Canada going to dissolve it'sself and return all the stolen lands to the natives?

    Or America?

    The Arabs going to return the lands to the Berbers. Druze?

    One Standard for Israel, no standards for anyone else...

    ReplyDelete
  105. Ash said...
    In other words it is a very reasonable compromise to settle at '67 borders with compensation in land for modifications, Palis give up right of return, and a shared Jerusalem (either internationally administered or some other 'co-government')


    Will the arabs compensate the Jews for the lands they stole?

    The offer of 67 borders with lands swaps was made 2 times and REFUSED by the arabs...

    ReplyDelete
  106. Bush said, however, that in pursuing stronger ties with Beijing, the United States should not compromise its principles, such as freedom of religion. “Some people say that we all worry about it — the growth of China,” Bush told a financial forum in Shanghai.

    “They look at China’s growth and say: ‘This is cause for worry’.” “I don’t believe that.

    I view it as an opportunity. I view it as a chance to develop a win-win strategy,” Bush said.


    China's Rise

    ReplyDelete
  107. WiO,

    Ash, believes, as does the President, that the day will soon come when the lion lies down with the lamb, if only we can manhandle those troublesome Jews into submission. It's the old messianic motif on a postmodernist canvas.

    Until then, well until then:
    Mansions of the Lord

    ReplyDelete
  108. Amazing Grace

    Amazing Grace


    "Twas grace that taught my heart to fear
    And grace my fears relieved."

    ReplyDelete
  109. According to the developers of the Trophy system, it is capable of stopping any anti-tank weapon in the Hezbollah arsenal. These weapons were directly responsible for the deaths of at least 19 Israeli tank crewmen during the war between Israel and Hezbollah that raged for a month in 2006.

    A Trophy program manager only identified as Gil said, "We can cope with any threat in our neighborhood, and more."

    The system is said to cost about $200,000 per installation and the amount is described as a small fraction of the cost of a tank. Rafael, the company behind Trophy, expects that the system will generate lots of international interest and the firm expects customers to order the Trophy system in the coming years.


    Defense System

    ReplyDelete
  110. Former immigration minister Phillip Ruddock earleir called on the government to guarantee the integrity of its refugee processing system rather than “simply say yes” to expedite the growing number of claims.

    ...

    “My concern is that processes like this need to be the subject of continuing affirmation by the government of the importance of it being lawful and not influenced by other factors," Mr Ruddock said.

    “I hear little from those responsible affirming that approach. And I would be concerned if decision makers came to a view that in order to expedite processing of refugee claims that it may be easier simply to say yes to claims than to thoroughly scrutinise them against all of the available information,” he told The Australian Online.


    Shutting Door on Claims

    ReplyDelete
  111. JAPAN'S Justice Minister Keiko Chiba said on Friday she was concerned that China's execution of three Japanese convicted drug smugglers could harm ties.

    ...

    Chiba has long been a supporter of London-based rights group Amnesty International and a member of other anti-death penalty organisations. Since taking up her post seven months ago, she has been tight-lipped about her opposition to capital punishment, but she has also so far signed no execution orders for the almost 100 Japanese prisoners now on death row.

    Amnesty in a September report condemned Japan's death penalty system, saying conditions are so 'cruel, inhuman and degrading' that they drive many death row prisoners insane.


    Harming Ties

    ReplyDelete
  112. "That seems an appropriately logical reductio for multiculturalism: the subhuman zionazis and the Riot Against Israeli Apartheid executive committee united by their opposition to Ann Coulter.

    Celebrate diversity! Thus, the new Canada: intolerance is “tolerance”; mob rule is “restraint”; “kike¬roaches” is “civility”; law enforcement is optional; jokes are actionable; up is down; black is white; “conflict studies” majors are rioting; Steve Paikin interviewing the Ontario finance minister on public television makes Jerry Springer interviewing transsexuals who date their ex-wives’ dads look like Jack Paar hosting Kitty Carlisle Hart; and sticks and stones may break your bones, but Rocks like Allan will issue a soothing press release. What an Olympic opening ceremony it would make."


    Mark Steyn Sings 'O Canada'


    .

    ReplyDelete
  113. Continuing Drought in Southwest China


    "Even before the drought, more than half of China's 1.3 billion people did not have access to clean water, causing nearly 200 million unnecessary illnesses annually and 60,000 premature deaths. Although China has 22% of the world's population and only 7% of its fresh water - much of that polluted during the past 30 years of breakneck economic growth - planning for disasters like this was apparently kept on the back burner.

    However, the central government has gone full speed ahead with lavishly expensive water projects such as Three Gorges Dam (US$26.4 billion) and the South-North Water Diversion Project (US$17.6 billion) that have brought little benefit to average villagers. Indeed, China's excessive dam-building is likely making the drought worse for many of them, since it prevents water from reaching their remote farmland.

    For years, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have blamed Chinese dams for shrinking the Mekong River, known in China as the Lancang River, which originates in the Tibetan Plateau and runs through Yunnan. Now the river - a lifeline not just for people living in those parts of China but also for the tens of millions living downriver in the nations of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam - is at its lowest level in two decades, disrupting cargo traffic.

    Underscoring their alarm, members of the Mekong River Commission completed a four-day summit in Thailand on Monday; it was the first such meeting in the commission's 15-year history. China, which has not joined the body, was present as an observer. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Song Tao used the occasion to deny once again that his country was responsible for shrinking the Mekong..."


    Drought in China



    .

    ReplyDelete
  114. As healthcare costs rise, will more people be going in for medical tourism?

    "INDIA LEGALIZED surrogacy in 2002 as part of a long-term push to promote medical tourism. Since 1991, when the country's new free-market policies took effect, private money has flowed in, fueling construction of world-class hospitals that cater to foreigners.

    Surrogacy tourism has grown steadily here as word gets around that babies can be incubated at a low price and without government red tape. Patel's clinic charges about $15,000 to $20,000 for the entire process, from in vitro fertilization to delivery, whereas in the handful of American states that allow paid surrogacy, bringing a child to term costs between $50,000 and $100,000. "One of the nicest things about [India] is that the women don't drink or smoke," adds Jordan, the Delhi surrogacy customer. And while most American surrogacy contracts also forbid such activities, Jordan says, "I take people in India more for their word than probably I would in the United States."


    Surrogacy in India is Big Business


    .

    ReplyDelete
  115. I think we need a Battle Hymn of the Republic post this morning, don't you, Blue?

    I am personally declaring April 9 Extinguishing Sedition Awareness Day and a little Julia Ward Howe would be an appropriate start.

    ReplyDelete