French Military Creates Ghost Town in Central Africa

The French military paratroopers created a ghost town in the Central African Republic (CAR).

A recent three day operation left near complete devastation behind.

"We found a ghost town," said Toby Lanzer, UN humanitarian affairs co-ordinator for CAR. "It was like Grozny or parts of Mogadishu. Seventy per cent of buildings were burnt and only about 600 civilians were left. They were in a dazed state. They have nothing.

About 2000 survivors had been tracked into the Darfur region of Sudan.

The French army chief of staff had tried to keep the operation in Biro secret but information leaked when a UN mission traveled to the town near the Sudanese border.

The French who have a military support agreement with CAR had about 18 soldiers living in the town and this parachute drop was intended to evacuate the 18.

The French assault most likely not to blame for the entire destruction, but possibly lit the match that created the chaos.

Mirage F1 jets bombed rebel pick-up trucks and dozens of paratroops were airdropped into the combat zone.

With events in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia and other places this gem of a story didn't get the play it deserved.

Unlike Chad and until recently, Sudan, CAR has been amiable to UN assistance.

One thing the US would benefit from is seeing how the French fight a counterinsurgency. Although this is not on the same scale as Iraq, it would be interesting to see what tactic the French use. The last major counterinsurgencies the French were involved in were in Vietnam and Algeria.

Although the two governments (US and France) appear to have little to no common ground, the two militaries are on a more cordial level.

This story may not have legs, but it is nice to see that the French are still willing to use their military.

Mr Lanzer said: "It was France's first major airborne para drop into a war zone since 19 May 1978, when the Foreign Legion jumped on Kolwezi, Zaire, to free European hostages from rebel hands."

Why did the French use this instance to dust off the military hardware?

The last we heard of the French military in Africa, they were being accused of aiding the Hutu's slaughter of the Tutsis in Rwanda.

Political Advice

I haven't populated Free Thinking Americans with too much political commentary or advice about the upcoming Presidential election. It isn't because the election is not interesting, but when it comes down to it, the political players don't have the power and I'll show you how to make your candidate pay attention to your cause.

Who has the power? Not the politicians.

If the politicians don't have the power, then who does? The lobbyists duh.

It isn't that difficult to figure out.

What is the job description of every politician?

1. Get elected
   
2. Do whatever it takes to get re-elected
   

You didn't think it was to serve their constituents? Silly you, and I sincerely hope you didn't think it was to serve the country or mankind or some other altruistic ideal?

You didn't? Good, I was worried there for a second.

Don't make me whip out a list of all the campaign promises that have been broken. Read my lips...there have been plenty of campaign promises broken.

So what is an activist to do?

What can I do to make "My Guy" vote "My Way?"

First of all, figure out what you you want. If you want more lunar rock gardens, join and donate to the LUNAr gardeners of america CommittEE (LUNACEE). If LUNACEE has enough money it can get any politician to spend American taxpayers' dollars on growing rocks on the moon. The politicians need the money to pay for their campaigns to tell you how wonderful they are and how important lunar rocks are to America's national interests.

If you absolutely MUST waste your money on a campaign, please don't waste it on a primary. Look at Howard Dean, talk about a fizzle. Imagine if you spent your life fortune on a guy who was out of the race before it really started. By donating during the primary, you may be giving money to a guy who won't even be in the national election. This is called electability. One of the main things shrewd donators will look for in a primary is someone who is electable.

Look at the Democratic race right now. Every Democrat in the world was suppose to be on the Hillary Clinton bandwagon by now, but this Barack Obama guy seems to have something going. But let's not get too carried away with him yet though-can you say Howard Dean? So you see a lot of Democrats sitting on the sidelines waiting for the fog to lift. As soon as one emerges as the clear leader, you're going to see a lot of Democrats come out of the woodwork saying, "Oh, most definitely, I've been a Hillobama supporter from the beginning, I just didn't want to say too much that might have detracted from her/is campaign. I wanted her/im to win the primary on his/er own merit."

Are lobbies slimy? You betcha. This is politics right?

OK class, how to you get bills passed through congress? You buy votes, very good.

Can any politician be bought? How do they get your vote in the first place? They bought it most likely. The prime example was the George Bush Medicare/Medicaid hand out in 2004. Is there any better way to secure Florida than to give free medicine to all the retirees?

Chinese Hackers Attack US Naval War College

The November cyber attack on the US Naval War College computer system has been pinned on Chinese hackers.

Chinese hackers were most likely behind an intrusion in November that disabled the Naval War College’s network, forcing it to disconnect from the Internet for several weeks, says Lt. Cmdr. Doug Gabos, a spokesman for the Navy Cyber Defense Operations Command in Norfolk, Va.

The US paints a doom and gloom scenario which could lead to a cyber 9/11.

“I think it’s going to take an Internet 9/11, and we’ve had some pretty serious problems on the Internet” for the country to seriously re-examine its approach to cyberwarfare, he said, according to a transcript.

But the US is well aware of the Chinese desired endstate.

China is aggressively improving its information warfare capabilities, according to a December 2006 Chinese military white paper. Its goal is to be “capable of winning informationized wars” by the mid-21st century.
The November cyber attack on the US Naval War College computer system has been pinned on Chinese hackers.

Chinese hackers were most likely behind an intrusion in November that disabled the Naval War College's network, forcing it to disconnect from the Internet for several weeks, says Lt. Cmdr. Doug Gabos, a spokesman for the Navy Cyber Defense Operations Command in Norfolk, Va.

The US paints a doom and gloom scenario which could lead to a cyber 9/11.

"I think it's going to take an Internet 9/11, and we've had some pretty serious problems on the Internet" for the country to seriously re-examine its approach to cyberwarfare, he said, according to a transcript.

But the US is well aware of the Chinese desired endstate.

China is aggressively improving its information warfare capabilities, according to a December 2006 Chinese military white paper. Its goal is to be "capable of winning informationized wars" by the mid-21st century.

And the US is well aware of the Chinese methods of attack.

The November attack was part of an ongoing campaign by Chinese hackers to penetrate government computers. The attacks often come in the form of "spear phishing," scams where attackers craft e-mail messages that seem to originate from the recipient's organization in a ploy to gain unauthorized access to confidential data.

China is also using more traditional hacking methods, such as computer viruses and worms, but in sophisticated ways, says Alan Paller, director of the security research organization SANS Institute.

Additionally, the US knows what the Chinese are after.

Forensic analysis indicates the hackers may have sought information on war games in development at the naval college.

China has also been accused of hacking into Taiwan's power grid system and shutting down power grids to frustrate the Taiwanese and to shake the confidence in the government.

Is the US this vulnerable? It could be. But the US may also be laying bait out for the Chinese to chew on just to observe the Chinese preferred method of cyber attack and what they will go after. "The college was vulnerable because it did not have the latest security protections, [Lt Cmdr Doug] Gabos said. It is difficult to believe that critical computer systems in the US military are not shut down for months. The only explanation is that the system wasn't critical, it was taken offline to do an autopsy on it to find the culprits, or it was set out as bait. And if the US isn't setting bait out for the Chinese to chew on-it should. The US should be setting out bait that is using technology that sends the Chinese off in a direction to make false assumptions about the US network infrastructure.

Was it left vulnerable for a reason? Could be.

China Oversteps Outer Space Capabilities

China again is clamoring for talks over the weaponization of space.



"The current Outer Space Treaty has clear inadequacies in preventing the

weaponization of outer space and arms races in outer space," according

to Chinese ambassador Tang Guoquiang, speaking at a UN committee meeting

on Wednesday.



Maybe China would have been better off if they hadn't shot down their

own outdated weather satellite in January 2007. If anything this

ratcheted up work on the weaponization of space.



China will have to get used to this kind of behavior now that it is on

the verge over the next few decades of passing up the US in terms of

global hegemony. Being global hegemon comes with responsibilities-can

you say IRAQ?



As China's power grows it will start to encounter nips at it's heals to

bring it down. The Australian-Japanese mutual defense agreement a couple

weeks ago is a prime example. Others in the area are already circling

the wagons.



As for space weaponization, the Chinese have built themselves a nice

loophole. They didn't shoot down their outdated weather satellite with a

space based weapon, they shot it down with a terrestrial based

anti-satellite system.



So look for them to push for a treaty banning space based anti-satellite

weapons. This way they can keep their anti-satellite weapons.



This ability essentially guarantees that there will be a weaponization

of space, and China did it to themselves. Since China can shoot down

satellites using land based rockets, to demilitarize space there would

have to be an eradication of all rockets-not going to happen. So if

China can shoot down satellites with land based rocket, why can't the US

use space based weapons to shoot down satellites?



Congratulations China, you've just guaranteed the weaponization of

space-welcome to hegemony.



Technorati Tags: space, space weaponization

Ten Biggest Mistakes in Iraq

From a historical perspective, what do you think will be the biggest mistakes made in Iraq? Here is my list of the top ten biggest mistakes in Iraq.

1. Intelligence failure: What ultimately causes a divorce? Saying, "I do." With accurate intelligence on Iraq's WMD program, the Bush administration might never had said, "I do." to war. Then again, there are some out there that believe the intelligence on Iraq's WMD program was out there and that Bush ignored it and the rest of the neocons supressed it.

   The inference of the presence of WMD was the best and more reasonable inference, even with the benefit of hindsight, although perhaps the confidence levels were overstated.

2. US should have focused on Afghanistan: If you ever read BUSH AT WAR by Bob Woodward, you'd see that Paul Wolfowitz was fixated on Iraq before the US ever really began with Afghanistan.

   America has lost credibility and influence worldwide. Instead of focusing its already strained resources on Iraq, it should have focused on rebuilding Afghanistan, looking for Osama bin Laden and key leaders of the Taleban, revving up the pressure on North Korea, Iran and Syria.

3. With the Political mistakes out of the way we can start to focus on some Defense Department mistakes. Number one for the DoD is Not going into Iraq with enough troops: I've written about before about how if Rumsfeld wasn't so hung up on his "Military Transformation" and the idea of a light quick military and had gone into Iraq with 300,000 to 500,000 troops like a good portion of the military and political leadership said was needed, there would be less than 10,000 troops in Iraq today.

   THE BIGGEST [Defense Department] MISTAKE IN IRAQ was not clamping down hard immediately after reaching Baghdad. First of all there needed to be more troops in the initial push to Baghdad.

4. Having no post invasion plan for Iraq. Along with #3 this one falls right in line with needing more troops in the initial push to Baghdad. Who was suppose to clean up the mess once we made it? Oh, I guess that'd be us.

   The President’s ever changing justifications for the war are as much evidence of his complete failure to plan for the post-invasion as are the cascade of blunders he has orchestrated in Iraq since the invasion.

5. Failing to stop the looting in Baghdad in April 2003: This one falls in line with #3 also. No, Mr. Rumsfeld, there was nothing good about the looting. This quote is from The Neurotic Iraqi Wife.

   On to different topic, regarding the looting and America forces not stopping it and "But at the same time, the troops that were there watching, should have been able to stop them and not contrary to what we saw on tv, encourage them to loot." Just because America troops were presence, it does not mean they could have stopped the looting. If they were given orders to shoot looters AND they had enough troops on the ground in location, then they could have a chance to stop the looting. But if you had a similar situation as it was in Iraq at that time for it to be in America instead, it is very unlikely that US forces would have been given the order to shoot looters.

6. Failing to secure the borders of Iran and Syria: Again we needed more troops. Are we beginning to see a trend here? Because of Rumsfeld's single theory, we pretty much lost a country and a whole lot of political clout in the region.
   
   
7. Letting the UN Oil for Food scandal pass without financially punishing the offenders. Kofi Anon and some of his henchmen should be held in Guantanamo at this point in history. They are a major cause to the US invasion. By propping up the Saddam Regime the UN was directly involve in persecuting the enemies of Saddam who were tortured and murdered during his reign.

   Saddam took Oil for Food money and fraudulently used it to his own gain and not the UN’s mandate.

8. Not crucifying France and Russia for their illegal contracts prior to the invasion. These illegal contracts, like the oil for food scandal helped prop up the Saddam regime.
9. Abu Ghraib: Total meltdown in military discipline.
10. Renaming Saddam City Sadr City: You don't rename a city named after one nemesis for another. Young enlisted Marines knew this was a bad idea in April 2003. This one could encompass several other cultural failures.

There have been dozens of mistakes made in Iraq, but right off the bat, these top ten mistakes stick out in my mind. Some others include Voting against the Iraq war before voting for it-yeah that worked well for you Senator Kerry. It worked about as well as, "Mission Accomplished." But at least George Bush was able to get re-elected.

Sadr Losing Control of Militias

One day after reporting on the latest assassination attempt on Muqtada al Sadr, there is a new report on Sadr losing control of his militias.



Some have blamed this loss of control on the fact that Sadr is believed to be out of the country.

While some officials think that Sadr -- who is the son of a famous
ayatollah who was killed during Saddam Hussein's rule -- is in Tehran,
others said he is in Qom, a center of religious learning with many ties
to Iraqi clerics.

But there seems to be confusion over where Sadr is. As I pointed out earlier, some sources have Sadr in Iraq again and surviving another assassination attempt.



It is possible that the latest attempt on Sadr's life was not conspired by the US. It could possibly have come from one of his own militias

Sadr had already cracked down against rivals within his militia last
August, as it grew difficult to rein in some of his commanders, U.S.
officials said. The Mahdi Army, which was estimated last year to have
20,000 to 60,000 members, had become a franchise operation with
factions that were failing to comply with orders or to pass money up
the lines to headquarters, the officials added.

This may have also been the impetus to Sadr's exile in Iran over the winter. Sadr may have feared for his own life from his own military leaders. And the temporary exile did not help his standing with his Iraqi militias.

Sadr's "absence weakens the perception of him, and perceptions make a
difference," said Lt. Col. James Gavrilis, a counterinsurgency expert
at the Pentagon.

Expect Sadr to return to Iran in short order.



Does this mean that the US is about to turn the tide in the Iraq War? No, this means that there are more leaders giving different instructions to different militias. This will make intelligence work harder in Iraq. 



But then again, having Sadr out of the way is something to smile about even if the workload increases.

















Technorati Tags: Iraq War, Sadr

Powered by ScribeFire.

Iran Provoking West Into War

Is Iran Provoking a War With the West?

The first question is why would Iran provoke a war with the West? Answer: who knows. Why do they have a president that demands the eradication of Israel? Why do they kidnap 15 British Sailors on the day the UN is considering a vote on sanctions against Iran? There have to be dozens of answers to these questions and they are all partly true, I’ll offer one.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the cleric leaders of Iran have lost themselves in radical religion that, like the high priests of Christ’s time, they can’t see reality when it is staring them in the face. Although this may be too religious of a point of view, it is hardly deniable that fanatical religious zealots act irrationally as seen by others.

But looking at the latest events it is hard to deny that Iran is boxing itself into a corner.

On top of the British Navy incident, there is the new standoff with Russia for Iran.

Russia will no longer deliver fuel for an Iranian nuclear-power reactor it is building at Bushehr, unless Iran suspends enrichment. The Russians quickly denied it. But there may be cracks in the Iran-Russia relationship nonetheless. Russia may be getting exasperated over late payments, not politics. (Mr Ahmadinejad’s free-spending politics, along with a febrile economy, have pushed even Iran’s oil-rich finances into shaky territory.) Whatever the reason, Iran may be risking alienating its best friend among the permanent, veto-wielding members of the Security Council.

Imagine in the lead up to World War II if the British frustrated the US to the point the US stopped providing for Britain militarily. That is what we are looking at. What else does this tell us? Don’t plan on negotiating with Iran. If Iran’s allies are fed up with negotiating with them how can the great evil empire (US) negotiate with this irrational state?

In addition to frustrating one of the few allies you have (China being the other) now you are taking a belligerent stance against a Western power-Britain. In 2004, Iran captured some British soldiers also, but that was because they said the British were in Iranian waters, the British were forced to confess and then let go.

The Iranian belligerence in 2007 is a different scenario. This time the British were well within Iraqi waters.

So why did Iran do it? What is in it for them?

The US is in a weakened state because of mistakes made on the left and right for quite some time now. The US is losing its will to win in Iraq and Iran is testing how far they can push the US. Much like the Soviet bombers that would feint an attack towards Alaska during the Cold War to see the reaction of the US, the Iranians are seeing how far they can push the envelope.

Will Iran take the first shot? They already have, and the West didn’t shoot back.

Depending on what the Rules of Engagement (ROE) is, what would have happened if the British sailors had air support available and called it in for self defense?

This scenario has already occured, when the US was lured into an Iranian ambush by untrustworthy Iraqi soldiers?

So there have been firefights between the US and Iran since September 2006. When do these firefights become battles? When do the battles become a war?

Only when the West believes it has been pushed to far. When will that be and how far is too far? Will the West have to suffer another 911?

Expect Increase Intensity in Shia Uprisings

Unconfirmed reports state Muqtada al-Sadr is in Kufa Iraq and that he has once again avoided an assassination attempt. That would make it assassination attempt number four over the last few years. We'll see how many lives this cat has evidently. Of course he claimed that the US-and particular Iraqis were behind the attacks.



Once this news gets out look for an increase in Shia violence against these anti-Sadr Iraqis and Americans alike. 



If this is the case it makes one wonder how bad the backlash would be if the assassination attempt was successful.



Although the violence may increase in the beginning, it will probably quickly be forgotten once the next big headline comes along. As a matter of fact the Iranian capture of British Sailors is still too fresh for this to be big news unless Sadr's assassin found his target.



The best solution it to marginalize Sadr. Maybe we could get Philip de Vellis to make a video of Sadr attempting to procreate with a camel.



All kidding aside, getting Sadr caught in some corruption scheme or scandal that his followers could not deny would be a better course of action than a simple assassination. With an assassination comes the martyr aura. What's worse is the US renamed Saddam City to Sadr City in hopes that Sadr would help the US.



Naming a city after Sadr only to have to assassinat him later would look ridiculous. Yes, I know I'm describing the majority of US policy in Iraq when I mention ridiculous.

Powered by ScribeFire.

British Should have Seen Iranian Attack Coming

This isn't the first instance of Iran trying to abduct coalition forces. Back in September a Cavalry unit from the 101st Airborne Division provided this intelligence report.

According to a fairly detailed report dated
September 7th, from the 101st Airborne Division, a U.S. Cavalry group
patrolling the Iran/Iraq border with six Iraqis came across a couple of
Iranian soldiers on the Iraqi side of the border. When the Iranians saw
them, they jumped back into Iran. Later, "the patrol came upon a single
Iranian soldier on the Iraqi side of the border who did not flee." So
the joint patrol engaged the nice Iranian in conversation (at that
time, the rules of engagement did not permit us to shoot or arrest the
nice Iranians). During the schmooze, an Iranian platoon suddenly
appeared and its commander informed the joint patrol that "if they
tried to leave their location the Iranians would fire upon them."

This turned out to be a bit of an understatement, since the Iranian
platoon interrupted the conversation shortly thereafter by starting to
shoot with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. "The CF Soldiers
returned fire to break contact and left the area to report the
incident" (don't you love the 1984-style language? A simple English
translation would have been better: "We shot back at the bastards and
got the hell out of there"). The Iranians kept on firing but didn't hit
anyone.

And, by the way, the Iraqi-army guys stayed with the Iranians.

Going back to the beginning of the war, this shows why keeping the Iraqi Army intact would not have been a sound course of action.



The best course of action would have been to go along with much of the military leadership (and some of the political leadership) and deployed 300,000 to 500,000 troops in the first place.



One of the missioned that was discarded by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was the locking down of the Syrian and Iranian borders. When Rumsfeld attacked with his quick light force, he left too many holes for the enemy to pour through.



This isn't the only mistake along the way, but with this course of action there would probably only be 10,000 troops in Iraq at this time.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Military Not Prepared for War?

Imagine that? Four years into a war that we can’t seem to put away, and some people believe that the military is not prepared for war.

And yet Iran, Democrats and other liberals around the world are terrified that the US plans on waltzing into war with Iran.

Four years after the invasion of Iraq, the high and growing demand for U.S. troops there and in Afghanistan has left ground forces in the United States short of the training, personnel and equipment that would be vital to fight a major ground conflict elsewhere, senior U.S. military and government officials acknowledge.

Somebody please explain the terror of the Iranians when they believe that the US is on the verge of invading? There is no way the US will ever invade in Iran under any circumstances…unless the US elects a female president that needs to prove her mettle that is.

The idea of the US making a military strike with bombers and cruise missiles? That is a different story.

Ethanol Opponenets Cut Down Corn

Ethanol Opponents are trying their best to point to the apocalypse that is sure to come if ethanol is pursued as an alternate to dependence on foreign oil.

In political circles, ethanol is the flavor of the day, and presidential candidates have been cycling through Iowa extolling its benefits. Lost in the ethanol-induced euphoria, however, is the fact that three of our most fundamental needs -- food, energy, and a livable and sustainable environment -- are now in direct conflict.

Evidently being a slave to Iranian, Sudanese and Venezuelan (among other courtries) oil is a better answer for Western Civilization.



The horrors of increased food prices are not as bad as it may seem. First of all consider that the US is one of the largest food producing countries. So is it better that the world pay a premium for oil to the middle east, or a premium on food to the US? Call me a realist, but I'd rather have the dollar in my pocket. Besides, the US has a better resource to make ethanol than corn-more on this later.

Biofuels, such as ethanol made from corn, have the potential to provide us with cleaner energy. But because of how corn ethanol currently is made, only about 20 percent of each gallon is "new" energy. That is because it takes a lot of "old" fossil energy to make it: diesel to run tractors, natural gas to make fertilizer and, of course, fuel to run the refineries that convert corn to ethanol.

If someone was to give me $120 For every Benjamin Franklin I gave them, I'd be independently in short order. Just because the solution isn't optimal, doesn't mean it is worthless. The author is also off on his numbers, it is more like 30 percent and from the calculations I've made in the past, it is as high as 37 percent return.



The author also omits the fact that ethanol produced from sugar shoots these numbers up to 800 Percent return. For every gallon of gasoline, you get 8 gallons of sugar based ethanol.



Better yet, with trees the return skyrockets up to 1600 percent. 16 gallons of ethanol for every gallon of gas.



Where do we get the trees? Why not use genetically engineered trees that grow quicker than normal trees?



And yes, the US has a lot more trees than the entire middle east I'd imagine.



What about the increase in greenhouse gas emissions? That is based on cutting down trees to plant corn, soybeans and sugar.  If trees are the base of US ethanol, the increased greenhouse gas threat is mitigated.



And eventually, the ethanol process can be refined. The problem is that if we don't continue our evolution towards biofuels by waiting for the perfect solution we'll always be dependent on foreign oil. Sometimes the 60% solution, or in the case of corn based ethanol 120%, is better than no solution.



It is interesting to wonder about who writes these anti-biofuel articles? Are they environmentalists? Or an oil lobbyest posing as an environmentalist?



It takes forever the get congress to move in any direction. By the time the US does start its conversion to biofuels in earnest there will obviously be several newer versions of ethanol out on the streets. But to not pursue them now is grossly negligent.





Technorati Tags: Biofuels, Ethanol

Powered by ScribeFire.

Without Islamic Rule Somalia Falls into Chaos

Since the ousting of the Islamic Courts Council in December 2006 by the Ethiopian Army, Somalia has had little peace and less order.

Somali civilians and masked insurgents burned the bodies of four soldiers, kicked them, pelted them with rocks and dragged the bloodied and half-naked corpses through Mogadishu on Wednesday, witnesses said. It was one of the most violent days since Somalia's Ethiopian-backed transitional government ousted a relatively popular Islamic movement in December.

The only shred of good news in this whole fiasco is that at least Ugandan troops were not involved. Once the Ugandan troops start taking casualties, expect Uganda to pull out its troops.

"The situation has gone from worse to worse," he said. "Mogadishu is at the lowest point of its social and humanitarian crisis."

Like Mogadishu could get worse?

Expect the Somalis to beg for the Islamic Court Council (ICC) to return. Peace and order under a Islamic fundamentalist government is better than the chaos of continued warlord fighting.

One thing a strict oppressive government can bring to a country is order. Look at Yugoslavia. Most of the world had no idea what chaos was brewing under the Communist government of Yugoslavia.

Also look at Afghanistan. That is another country that was ruled by warlords until the Taliban came along and provided some, not complete, order.

Expect the ICC to stay out of the fight for quite sometime. The US is right next door in Ethiopia and will make it difficult for the ICC to return even if Somalis want/need/desire their return to restore order.

Eventually, the ICC will make its bid for power in Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia.

What will the US do once the ICC does return to Somalia? What did it do last time? It went to Ethiopia and provided aid to its military to do the US's dirty work.

Anti-Hillary Clinton Video Creator Fired

Earlier, Free Thinking Americans questioned whether bloggers could overtake campaigns.

Well, it seems we have our first casualty. A Mr. Philip de Vellis who until recently worked for Blue State Digital has been accused of creating.

Of course, the Obama campaign came out immediately and said it was clean of any wrong doing. But Blue State Digital is under contract by the Obama campaign.

As I proposed before, in a couple years, campaigning could be left to bloggers alone. The blogosphere almost pushed the Dean candidacy into the running in 2004, could it eventually be the entire emphasis behind a campaign.

What is frightening is that with technology growing like it is, you could have a Philip de Vellis creating a lifelike video of a candidate that is entirely fabricated.

I saw this in the 1990s once where in information operations, the military has considered using technology to overtake a country's media and posting falsified reports. I remeber one service member stating, "We could show Saddam Hussein humping a camel if we'd like."

In the future who knows what or who you'll be voting for or what the truth will be.

Conspiracy theorists have thought this way for a long time. Although many think they are off the deep end, could they possibly be prophetic?

Other Opinions

• The Daily Bellwether: Ohio, Philip De Vellis And Anti-Hillary Ad: A Step Close To Obama?
  
• FREEDOM EDEN: Philip de Vellis
  
• Prognosis Progressive: "Vote Different" maker exposed
  

Ahmadinejad to Miss UN Vote

Now why would Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad want to miss the UN vote that will condemn his country once again?

This will bring down all sorts of financial and military restrictions on Iran. And it will not help with Ahmadinejad's unpopularity at home.

Ahmadinejad would be best served by complying with the UN and IAEA requests for the time being. Then he should consider helping the US stabilize Iraq and allowing the US troops to go home and leave the middle east, which would make the whole area feel more secure.

Once the US is out of the region, then Iran could consider revisiting the nuclear weapon issue.

The council seeks verifiable assurances from Iran that it is not pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

Verifiable eh?

The recent talks between Iran the US and other countries in Baghdad over the security of Iraq was at least a start for Iran.

Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran and the more pragmatic of the two would play the situation much more differently than Ahmadinejad. Although Ahmadinejad has no real power, his speeches create problems for Iran. Once Ahmadinejad's term expires Iran will have a shorter route to obtaining nuclear weapons.

UPDATE:

UN unanimously passes sanctions against Iran.

Please try to contain your shock and amazement. Especially a day after Iran abducted 15 British Marines.

Other Opinions
Zionism & Israel News Archives: UN Security council adopts weakened Sanctions against Iran

Iran Navy Makes Risky Raid

On Friday, UK officials confirmed that 15 Royal Navy Sailors were captured/abducted/kidnapped by "Iranian sailors belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, a radical force operating separately from the country’s usual navy."

This radical Naval force is not likely to be taking its orders from the central Iranian government. With the UN Security council sewing up loose ends to tighten sanctions on Iran, this raid will only sway any fence sitters to vote against Iran.

Is the central government of Iran loosing control? Has the hatred of the West in Iran overtaken sensibility?

Ayatollah Khamenei, although no friend of the US, is also pragmatic. The Supreme Leader wouldn't order this type of attack, so it was probably a lower level military commander that ordered the raid or a misunderstanding like the article indicates.

At any other time this would blow over with a lot of talk, but no real consequences.

Rioting in China Continues

Rioting in Guixi City, Jiangxi Province of China is the latest in a series of rioting in the central part of China.

Reports stating from 200 protesters to thousands, took over the main railway station in protest of the merging of two communities for administrative purposes if nothing else.

There have been reports of up to 40 injured people involved in the incident.

The Chinese are protesting because the merger will join an affluent area with a poorer area and the haves will have benefits and privileges stripped away in a "rezoning."

Local corruption is suspected to be behind the "rezoning" and look for more rioting as the wealth of China is unevenly dispersed over the coming years.

Funny how socialism is suppose to balance this out, but what happens when a socialist country turns capitalist.

Pure Capitalism isn't nirvana, just like pure socialism. China is trying to find itself where in the spectrum it lies. While the United States thrives towards the capitalist side and Europe drifts towards the socialist side, China would be well to do to set up unions rather than suffer the anarchy of the 1890s that produced the Communist Revolution in the first place.

Unions saved the US from becoming socialist. At the turn of the last century, without unions, the US would have fallen into socialism or anarchy.

And although unions are not needed as much anymore with all the federal government meddling in business (which drains the US economy) at one time unions were essential to any shred of capitalism the US might have enjoyed.

Liberal Limp to Lame Compromise over Iraq.

Liberal Senator and Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has always boasted about his pragmatism.

Well, the liberal members of the House have taken a page out of Barack Obama's playbook and taken the pragmatic approach to Iraq.

Instead of demanding a deadline for a withdrawal from Iraq, the Out of Iraq Caucus leaders decided to break the pact that members had made to stick together against the bill. "We have released people who have been pained by all this," said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.). "We told them we don't want them to be in a position of undermining Nancy's speakership."

The acquiescence of the liberals probably means that the House will pass a binding measure today that, for the first time, would establish tough readiness standards for the deployment of combat forces and an Aug. 31, 2008, deadline for their removal from Iraq.

What is interesting is the liberals in America are tiring of liberal democrats as much as conservative republicans.

Over this past weekend when the liberal anti-war protesters were rallying around the Pentagon, one of the sentiments that flowed from discontent was that democrats were not to be trusted any more than republicans in regards to getting out of Iraq.

This could hurt the democratic party in the next election. If the left wing extremists feel so disenfranchised by the democratic party, they could sit out the next election thinking a liberal democrat that didn't demand a withdraw from Iraq is no better than a conservative republican that refused to allow a withdraw from Iraq, the democratic party may miss out on a golden opportunity.

If this discontent grows, the democrats could lose some of the gains they made in the 2006 election.

Worse yet, if the democratic party selects Hillary Clinton as their candidate, left wing extremist organizations such Moveon.org could throw its support behind a third party candidate that is more in line with their extremist views.

This would guarantee a republican in office for the next few years especially when the Republicans have two moderates as the only two serious contenders in John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani.

Getting elected on the promise of bringing home the troops from Iraq may have been a Bridge Too Far for the liberal democrats.

UPDATE:

House passed bill calling for US troop withdrawal by the end of August 2008.

The bill has little chance to make it through the Senate, and even less of a chance getting across President Bush's desk without a veto.

More Commentary:

• Pushing Rope: House Passes Timetable For Iraq
  
• Dragyn's Breath: House Passes Supplemental
  
• Cut to the Chase: Zapping & Snapping The Zeitgeist: While Bush Tantrums, House Passes Iraq War Spending Bill With Timetable for Troop Withdrawal
  

Could Bloggers Overtake the Campaign?

I came across this article about cheap political ads. 

 

Bloggers are now making a heavy input on political campaigns. 

 

The world is changing.  People are getting their news in different forms.  Professional bloggers (pajama media folks) jump on news stories quicker than the old established news media, and sometimes create the news.

 

Will political campaigns follow?

 

In the Red Tape Chronicles MSNBC Bob Sullivan Chronicles the you-tube (someone please post the link in the comments) commercial against Hillary based on the 1984 Apple commercial.

 

The amateur ad supports Presidential hopeful Barack Obama at the end.  Obama’s campaign people have denied any involvement.

 

This is all interesting, but what happens IF the ad backfired?  Would the public realize it is just an ad by an over zealous supporter, or could the ad actually damage a campaign?

 

What is also interesting about the pajama media is that unlike the archaic media, there is no demand for objective reporting/analysis.  Since you are reading Free Thinking Americans now, it is likely that you’ve read other blogs and noticed how passionate they can become. 

 

I imagine that 50 years from now, TV ads and media will have very little to do with political campaigns.  The campaign battlefield will not be over airtime on NBC and FOX, but over bandwidth on MySpace and You-Tube.

 

So who is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

911 Mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is/was the al Qaeda number three until the US supported Pakistani anti-terrorism task force caught up with Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (aka KSM) in Pakistan-you've seen the picture of the pudgy and groggy looking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's comments at the military tribunal in Guantanamo are nothing what a Westerner would have confessed.

He boastfully stated he was the 911 mastermind. No denying, no quibbling.

It is hard to get leniency from a judge with that type of a remark.

The Christian Science Monitor article goes on about the well documented transcript which is fascinating for Westerners to read because of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's behavior.

The reason KSM's view is so interesting is because it is nothing a Westerner would have expected from another Westerner. But what would have a Westerner have expected from a Muslim? The same they expect from a Westerner.

The West is at a disadvantage because it knows what its culture is and thinks the rest of the world is just like it. When a Westerners watch an movie filmed in India, they are marveled by the strange culture.

Westerners also know that Hollywood isn't real life.

That is where Muslims are at a disadvantage. For the most part, Hollywood is all they see of the West and build their impression of the West from Hollywood. And it isn't just the movies, its the Entertainment Tonight, People Magazine and every other media that tracks the hedonism of Hollywood.

Why did the 911 hijackers get drunk and go to strip clubs to get lap dances the night before committing the terrorist attacks?

This is where I'll differ from the Western point of view. A Westerner might feel, "Hey, I'm about to go, might as well live it up tonight."

I suspect these Islamic fanatics were building their anger against the West the night before committing a terrorist attack never before or since seen.

The Islamic fanatic loathes Western hedonism. What better way to spike the burning hatred than to immerse yourself in the very acts you detest?

Democrats Fail to Pass Iraq War Bill Again

An Iraq war bill that made it through Nancy Pelosi's Democratic House was hung up in the Senate again today.

The Iraq war bill put restrictions on how troops could be used and put a target date of 31 March 2008 to start redeploying troops. Or at least that is what it seemed to say.

What the Iraq war bill actually said doesn't really matter because the Democrats couldn't pass it anyway. In the past Republicans threatened a filibuster and prevented cloture.

This time, the Republicans felt cocky enough to let the Iraq war bill go to a vote and the Senate still couldn't pass the binding legislation.

But in good taste and in a pathetic show of unity, they all sang kumbaya and overwhelmingly passed non-binding legislation that supported the troops.

The Senate really hung their reputation out on the line for that piece of legislation.

Chinese Land Reform-Slowly Becoming Capitalist

Chinese land reform will take a major step forward next week when Chinese in the inner city will be able to own real estate for the first time since 1949.

Ironically Chinese land reform supposedly is the embodiment of Communism.

Introducing the new law last Thursday, NPC Vice Chairman Wang Zhaoguo went so far as to describe "effective protection of private property" as "what the (Communist) Party stands for."

Mr. Wang's description of Chinese land reform would bring a tear to any Washington politician. Maybe this is what Barack Obama meant by "both-and."

Of course the Chinese capitalists wanted more, and the communists were outraged but it is a compromise that is the beginning of more Chinese land reform that may include farm land eventually.

It begs the question if a property owner in Shanghai or Beijing will one day have more rights over his property than someone in San Francisco where socialists have overrun the city.

Thinking about 100-150 years from now, will China grow into a beacon of liberal democracy and will the United States fall into the abyss of European socialism? Looking that the direction the two countries are going, it wouldn't be that far of a stretch.

Pakistan-Afghanistan Border Fence its Time Has Come

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has offered up the idea of building a fence along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border to control the region. It looks like Pakistan has started to fence the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Sound familiar?

The US wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. The Iranians want to build a wall along the Pakistani border.

But like Mexico, Afghanistan is not thrilled with the idea of a fence being built along its border.

Afghanistan is unrealistic in its protests though. First of all, Afghanistan is frustrated that Pakistan is not controlling its border and allows Taliban forces to conduct raids from Pakistan into Afghanistan.

It is well documented the it is nearly impossible to patrol the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. A fence would facilitate Pakistan's efforts to patrol the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Although fences and walls will not prevent an invasion, they do hamper raids. And that is exactly what Afghanistan is looking for from Pakistan.

So what is the hangup? The Afghanistan-Pakistan border is not well defined.

Afghan officials still refer to the border as the Durand Line, its name when it was drawn up in 1893 by British India, which once included Pakistan, to divide powerful ethnic Pashtun tribes.

"We should bear in mind that in most areas, the so-called Durand Line is not clear," the [Afghanistan] defence ministry said separately. A fence in the area would separate tribes and families living on either side, it added.

But in this case, Afghanistan cannot let the undefined line prevent Pakistan from doing all it can to stem Taliban cross border raids. And if that means building a fence (and using landmines if need be) it is hard sympathize with Afghanistan's argument against the wall.

If Afghanistan wasn't under the threat of terrorist attacks by the Taliban, then Afghanistan would have a valid argument. As the saying goes, beggars can't be choosers.

Bush’s Foreign Policy-Evolutionary

Through the years the President Bush’s foreign policy has changed more skins than a snake.

In 1999 and 2000 the critique of George Bush was he was weak in foreign policy. But that wasn’t a problem. The US was enjoying the economic boom of the dot coms and foreign policy was nothing to worry about. Remember that in 1998, the news story of the year involved a stain on an intern’s (Monica Lewinsky) blues dress. Although there were the Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, the movie WAG THE DOG, had just come out in 1997 and made the embassy bombings look opportunistic for then President Bill Clinton than a valid terrorist problem. Hindsight clearly shows the US was exceedingly naïve regarding the terrorist threat.

Never the less, George Bush was declared president after some legal maneuvering involving hanging chads, butterfly ballots and recounts in a state where his brother Jeb Bush was governor (Florida).

On day one Bush’s foreign policy was built on realism. No need to go out and conquer the world, let’s shore up our own power, keep this economic boom going and not worry too much about foreign policy.

Bush, like everyone else outside the intelligence community, was caught off guard by the 9/11 attacks. His understanding of realism and foreign policy didn’t address terrorist attacks as he understood it. A realist, or a liberal for that matter, would have eradicated the Taliban in Afghanistan, but that is where the Bush presidency was hi-jacked. Realists like Colin Powell, Pat Buchanan (who is a borderline isolationist too) and other conservatives along with the numerous liberals were not sold on the idea of invading Iraq.

From what I’ve read this is a where the Bush foreign policy was hijacked by the exceptionalists (neoconservatives, aka neocons). The idea is that the American system is far superior to any other political system available and the US is sharing its bounty by forcing its ways upon other countries. “No democracy ever attacked another democracy,” is a favorite quote of the exceptionalists. Bush didn’t invent exceptionalism, it dates back to Thomas Jefferson. But Irving Kristol, the, “liberal who was raped by reality,” is hailed as the founder of modern day neoconservativism.”

The exceptionalists sold Bush on the idea that if the US conquered Iraq, set up a democracy and pushed for democracy throughout the region, this terrorism problem would dry up. In my opinion Paul Wolfowitz was the worst offender-he was also promoted out of the administration rather quickly. Others include John Bolton, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld.

On the other hand, liberals (in general-there are several definitions) believe that through negotiation people are able to compromise and share power for mutual benefit. Instead of attacking because of differences, negotiate to find common ground and work an agreement from there.

This is where Bush’s foreign policy seems to be headed at this point in history. After dumping realism too quickly for exceptionalism, it appears now that Bush is headed for liberalism.

The North Korean agreement is a perfect example. Now, that the US is talking with Iran (a terrorist state trying to build a nuclear weapon that the US would never negotiate with) and although the discussions are heated, talking is a new direction for Bush’s foreign policy.

US Oil Companies-Hate Them Like You Hate The Mailman Who Delivers Bills.

Why is it fashionable to hate US Oil Companies? Someone please explain this too me.

Would we feel better if they weren't US oil companies, but perhaps Chinese? Russian? Middle Eastern oil companies? I think we are better off with US oil companies.

Do US oil companies set the price of oil? Nope, if anyone comes close to setting a price for oil it would be the OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries). But mostly it is market pressure that sets oil prices, not OPEC and even less so US oil companies.

Do US oil companies make a profit. You better believe it. The good part of this is that unlike Venezuela (who has taken government control of the foreign oil industry) US oil companies operate in a capitalist society. If you think the US oil companies are making too much money-buy their stock!

Speaking of Venezuela come May 1, 2007 you can expect to pay more for gas.

President Hugo Chavez ordered by decree on Monday the takeover of oil projects run by foreign oil companies in Venezuela's Orinoco River region.

Chavez had previously announced the government's intention to take a majority stake by May 1 in four heavy oil-upgrading projects run by British Petroleum PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), Chevron Corp. (CVX), ConocoPhillips (COP) Co., Total SA (TOT) and Statoil ASA. (STO)

US oil companies will have even less control over the price of gas in the US and expect the price of gas to go up. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has a lot of social programs he needs to pay for to remain popular.

Would it be nice to pour a cup of water into your car and be able to drive 500 miles to the ounce of water? Yes. Does the technology exist? Not that I know of.

But the US oil companies are not to blame. All they are is a middleman looking to make a profit, they don't have a monopoly, but are subject to a cartel. Does the mailman get paid to deliver bills to you? Yes, Does that mean we need to hate the mailman?

North Korea Agreement is No Fair Trade

North Korea agreement is no deal at all for America...or Japan.


The Council on Foreign Relations asked two analysts to comment on the North Korea agreement on nuclear weapons where in general North Korea dismantles its nuclear weapons program in return for fuel oil and and access to assets the US froze

Henry Sokoski points out the previous points the North Korea agreement is pointless when North Korea couldn't be trusted in the first place. But he also points out that Japan suffered more.

Certainly, this deal has kicked the Japanese in the political shins. Japanese Prime Minister Abe just won a successful election campaign platform of pressuring Pyongyang to resolve the Japanese abduction cases and tightening security ties with the U.S. Without prior consultation, though, Washington agreed with Beijing to subordinate the Japanese abduction issue and instead promised Pyongyang immediate energy aid and relief from U.S.-imposed banking restrictions for a temporary freeze on its plutonium production.