Walking Out On Crazy Leaders

While normally I would be proud to see Canadian diplomats boycotting an Iranian speech at the United Nations, I do have a procedural request. The visual effect is far greater when you get up and walk out of the room 10 seconds after he starts talking than if you don't show up at all. The Canadian seats at the UN assembly were empty before Ahmadeninejad even began talking. Over 30 countries walked out during his speech, and that visual was broadcast on news stations all around the world. It was great to see. Next time, let's send our people to the speech and have them walk out as soon as he begins talking so cameras can catch the visual image.

Iran's Proxies Behaving Badly

With all the other big stories dominating the media cycle, I am not hearing many pundits talk about what is currently happening with Iran's puppets. First, radical cleric and Iraqi militia leader Muqtata Al Sadr (who had been living in Iran since they called off his revolt) has been sent back to Iraq by the Ayatollahs. Within a week of that development, Hezbollah (another Iranian proxy) withdrew from the Lebanese government creating a crisis in that country. Sending Sadr back to Iraq right before Hezbollah collapses the Lebanese government may indeed signal that Iran is preparing for something.

We will see what happens. I am not going to make any predictions, but the Sadr story and the Hezbollah story happening so close together did trigger my "spider sense". I want to see just how strong Lebanese President Sulieman is, given his influence over the military. Does Iran sending Sadr back to Iraq signal that Iran would like to subjugate Iraq when Obama pulls the troops out? Does Iran want to escalate hostilities while Obama is still in power? It is plausible. I can't predict Iranian intentions, I just know that I am alarmed by these two events.

Iran Produces "Yellowcake" Uranium

Yesterday Iran announced that it now has the ability to produce "yellowcake" uranium which puts them closer to being able to manufacture nuclear weapons. Today's poll question; is it time for Israel to attack Iran's nuclear facilities? The downside is that an attack will very likely trigger a war between the two countries, however allowing Iran to develop these weapons could eventually lead to the destruction of Israel. When a country promises to wipe another "off the map", prudence demands that they be taken seriously, especially when they are seeking out the ability to do so.

One rumour coming out of the Wikileaks documents is that Saudi Arabia allegedly wants the United States to attack Iran. There are Muslim countries who do not want Iran to go nuclear.

Venezuela Going Nuclear

On the list of the all-time bad ideas, Russia is going to help Hugo Chavez go nuclear. This story did not make headlines in the Canadian media, but the world must be concerned about a nut like Chavez getting a nuclear bomb. This is nearly as troubling as Iran going nuclear, except that Venezuela has not threatened to wipe any countries off the map...at least that I'm aware of. Hugo likes to conduct his warfare through a proxy FARC, and I think has a lower probability of using a bomb than does Arachnidinijad. Granted Iran conducts its crusade against Israel through its own proxy Hezbollah, but the distance between Tehran and Tel Aviv is much larger than the distance from Bogota and Caracas. If Iran deployed a bomb against Israel, at least Syria and Jordan would soak up most of the radiation.

I think Hugo is less likely to use a bomb, but if he gets one, he will give leverage and aggressive diplomacy a new name.


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/10/15/russian-vows-help-venezuela-build-nuclear-power-plant/

Iran Outlaws Male Ponytails And Mullets

I must admit that I'm torn on some of the latest legislation to come out of Iran. On one hand, I would consider supporting a ban on male ponytails, but as a lifelong hockey player and fan I cannot support outlawing the mullet. I'm sorry; I consider the mullet (or "hockey hair") to be a part of my Canadian Heritage. A ponytail always looks silly on a male, so making them illegal does at least serve the purpose of protecting that small group of men in our society from embarrassing themselves. If you are a man, a ponytail can only do you harm, but with a mullet you can touch the sky!

Summer of War?

With the breaking news that Iran is preparing to militarize the Mediterranean, the probability of a major conflict between them and Israel will increase substantially. Once Iranian warships are patrolling off the coast of Israel, all bets are off. It is also safe to assume that Iran's proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon will be on standby to launch major hostilities at the nearest sign of conflict with the Jewish state. Hamas is much less of a threat because the blockade diminishes the ability of arms dealers to smuggle weapons into Gaza, where Hezbollah has pretty much free reign to import all the Syrian, Iranian, and Russian made weapons they can.

Not to be outdone, Turkey is also ramping up the rhetoric proclaiming that they will hold Israel accountable to their "state terror". I suppose nobody will be holding Turkey accountable for their own state terror against the Kurds and Armenians, but such is life. What is lost in all of this hysteria is that if you have a boat with food and clothing for the people of Gaza, either Israel or Egypt will gladly take your ship into port, unload the goods, inspect them to make sure there are no rockets, and take them into Gaza. You can get aid into Gaza, albeit slower. But if there is no blockade and ships are able to dock in Gaza, then the ability to smuggle weapons into the territory increases substantially. The math is pretty easy.

Who Is Earth's Most Evil Leader?

Who do you think is the most evil leader in the world? There are two metrics to consider, 1) total amount of evil, 2) capability of causing harm. As Conservatives we all agree that the world is going to be destroyed by an anti-Christ in the near future, so who is that ultimate bad guy most likely to be? Being a Conservative has nothing to do with personal freedoms and small government, it is about preparing everyone to die. I don't know about you, but that's why I'm a Conservative. (that's sarcasm by the way)...

Here is my starting list, am I forgetting anyone? I am looking for leaders currently leading a country. Obama doesn't count. I don't believe he's evil, just wrong.

1) Kim Jong Ill (North Korea)
2) The Ayatollah (Iran)
3) Hugo Chavez (Venezuela)
4) Vladimir Putin (Russia)
5) The Burmese Military junta
6) That guy in the Sudan
7) Qadaffy (Lybia)

Keep an eye on Hezbollah

When I watched Joe Biden last week flip on Israel like a guest on the Jerry Springer Show, I was immediately concerned. Islamic paramilitary groups like Hamas and Hezbollah feed on weakness, and perceived tension between Israel and the United States certainly qualifies. Sure enough this week we see Hamas organizing large scale violent protests of the Jewish state, and while the IDF is knee deep in an uprising I would be very weary of Iran's proxy on the northern border. The last time Hezbollah conducted a major paramilitary operation in Northern Israel was in the aftermath of Ariel Sharon falling into a coma. In 2006 Hamas started hostilities with Israel, and they were soon followed by their northern allies.

If Hezbollah sees an opportunity, there is an increased probability of them escalating hostilities with Israel. History suggests that the most likely scenarios are 1) begin frequent rocket fire at Haifa, 2) conduct an operation over the border to abduct an Israeli soldier, 3) deploy suicide bombers. What is the current status of the Syrian army? I seriously doubt that Syria would want to declare open war against Israel, but it does remain a remote possibility and Hezbollah does receive a lot of support from Damascus. If they ever intend to conquer the Golan Heights, they will not be able to do that by proxy.

I think tonight I will buy a bottle of Israeli wine to go with my supper. Make a small financial donation to the Holy land.

"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war"

-Albert Einstein

Turkey is still serious about defeating Al Qaeda

It is comforting to see a Muslim nation that is still serious about fighting the war on terrorism, as was on display today in Turkey when police arrested 120 suspected Al Qaeda members in a massive operation across 16 provinces. I have long maintained that the remnants of the old Ottoman Empire holds the key to defeating radical Islam in the Middle East. The Sultans were able to maintain jurisdictional control over most of the region for a really long time, and I see them as the gateway or bridge to a long term solution.

The Turks have some skeletons in their closet to be sure, but in that part of the world everyone does. Their feud with the Kurds is uncomforting to me, yet I don't know if it is even possible to reconcile that dispute. The tactics resorted to by the PKK to establish an independent Marxist state in the south east are not acceptable in a healthy democracy. Blowing up government buildings is not an acceptable means of achieving a goal, and once their movement shifted to violent civil disobedience, they forfeited their right to lenient empathy. The Kurds in Iraq are a different story, as they have built an oasis in Hell and I feel should be ordained with autonomous control over their territory. I am concerned that if we allow the Turkish military to roll their tanks into Iraq, they will plow right over Kurdistan on their way to Baghdad. And yet, the Turks may be the only force capable of preventing an Iranian invasion of eastern Iraq when the American military does finally depart.

I remember hearing stories about the Turks in Afghanistan, and that they are the only force that the Taliban doesn't attack. If that is true I would ascribe two possible reasons; 1) a "don't attack us and we won't attack you" situation, or 2) the Islamic extremists don't want to incur the full force of Turkish wrath in the global war on terror. What I do know is that the simultaneous arrests of 120 people across 16 provinces is a definite sign that Turkey is serious about fighting the war on Islamic extremism.

To the Turks, I say rock on! I used to date a Turkish girl in high school, but that's a story for another day... :)

What is the worst International Political Event/Person of the Decade?

Of all the political events/persons that occurred outside North America in the past ten years, which has had the most damaging effect on global security?  For example; the election of Hamas, Bhutto assassination, Kim Jong Ill, Mushareff resigns, Iranian nuclear program, Hugo Chavez, Osama Bin Laden, and so on and so forth.  I decided to split my worst political event/person of the decade into North American/International.  Honestly it hardly seemed fair to put the McGuinty government in the same poll as the Iranian nuclear program.  I know sometimes it may feel that way, but they should be judged on a different scale.  I'm not looking to put natural disasters on the list.  Again, if you have any suggestions, just leave a comment on the bottom.  I am considering leaving Osama off the list as the winner, and have everyone else compete for 2nd place.

When Appeasement Attacks; Iran invades Iraq

It will be interesting to see how the Nobel Peace Laureate responds to reports that Iran has been conducting military operations inside Iraq's sovereign borders to seize oil fields. According to the Iraqi Government, the Iranians are now fortifying their position around an oil well near the border. Obama has been employing a policy of appeasement in dealing with Iran thus far, and for his efforts, they invade Iraq. Apparently appeasement is a far more effective means of diplomacy than the threat of force, and yes that was intended as sarcasm.

I am not going to attempt to predict the next sequence of events, other than to say this is an instance where you need to punch the bad guy in the face rather than asking nicely. If Iran is able to seize Iraq's oil wealth without opposition, the incentive to take it all will be very alluring. In May, a few months after Obama's victory, I wrote a piece set to Annie Lennox Put a Little Love in your Heart to illustrate how events around the world were unfolding after the "hope and change" election victory. Say what you will about George Bush, tyrants and despots were afraid of him. Evil people take advantage of love and feed off of fear.

In the aftermath of the fraudulent Iranian election, I wrote an extended commentary on the state of Iranian leadership titled the Prince of Persia. Then when there was talk of a re-count a few days later, I said that re-count implies that you counted in the first place!

I am free to have an opinion on Iran, but there is precious little that I can do about it from my foxhole. If Iran is indeed going to press Iraq's eastern border, Obama is going to have a very difficult choice to make, and my bet is that he lets them take it. Has anyone been following the status of the Turkish army on the northern border? Is this situation set to explode?

1979: Remember When...

I was born during a very eventful year on Planet Earth. In November of 1979, two weeks before my birth, Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy for President of the United States while Jimmy Carter was running the country into oblivion. Joe Clark was the Prime Minister of Canada. If people are put on this planet for a reason, here are some of the events that happened when I was tapped for entry into existence.

1) Soviets invade Afghanistan

2) Margaret Thatcher becomes the new Conservative Prime Minister of England

3) Inflation in Jimmy Carter's United States hits 13.3%

4) The reactor at Three Mile Island goes critical

5) Dukes of Hazard is one of the top TV shows

6) Mother Teresa wins the Nobel Peace Prize

7) Mena Suvari, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Heath Ledger, Claire Danes, and Kate Hudson are born

8) Top songs include: Heart of Glass and I Will Survive

9) Top movies include: Alien, Apocalypse Now, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and The Muppet Movie

10) 63 Americans are taken hostage by the men of Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini

Nostradamus 2012

I dragged my ass out of bed for another lazy Sunday, turned on the History Channel, and what to my wondrous eyes should appear? A new documentary about Nostradamus, the ancient Mayans, and the year 2012. I was fascinated with the prophecies of Nostradamus when I was in high school, back when Nostradamian Scholars were predicting with unequivocal certainty that 2/3 of the world's population would die in July of 1999. That never happened, and I became a skeptic.

His prophecies are written in a vague form of poetry that can be filtered to fit virtually any significant historical event. He wrote vague predictions on pieces of paper, and for the rest of time historians would take these predictions and fit them to events that best suited their argument. Yet the probability that a man looked into a crystal ball 400 plus years ago and saw Kennedy being shot is virtually zero. Who am I kidding, it is exactly zero. The Zapruder Film was not pre-screened in 16th century France.

This documentary that I have been watching for the last 45 minutes ties Nostradamus into the Mayan calendar. The Mayans of course being among the first experts in astronomy and designed an elaborate calendar that has proven very accurate, and the calendar stops in Dec 2012. Coincidently, in Dec 2012 the sun, the earth, and the center of the Milky Way galaxy line up; an event that only happens about once every 26,000 years. I did score a B+ in Introductory Astronomy as a University freshman, so I do have a basic understanding of the key principles. I believe 95% of Astrology is bullshit. That you could say "you are going to meet a new person today because Aquarius and Jupiter are in zero". There is no direct correlation between where star constellations are in the sky and whether or not your boss will give you shit of Tuesday. Oh my Lord, that star is there and that star is there, I need to go bet on the Rams! That is just stupid.

In Astronomy, all the fundamentals are based on the observed rules of physics. We know that our planet is floating around a sun, and that our solar system is floating around the Milky Way. Our sun has a mighty gravitational pull which keeps our planet circling around at a fixed distance. At the center of our galaxy is a massive force of gravity strong enough to pull millions of stars into orbit. If our tiny little planet fell into a straight line with these two massive forces of gravity, it is possible that we could feel a measured effect on our planet, however small or however large that might be. Maybe it just adds 20 yards to my drive and we get minor satellite disruption, or maybe we feel no effect at all. While I am a mathematician, I am not qualified to predict the effects of this cosmic alignment.

Did the Mayans stop writing their calendar because the world was going to end? Or did they just get tired of carving it into stone? Do you think two masons just looked at each other one day and said "well we've gone up to 2000 years in the future, what do you say we call it quits and go shoot some ball?" The stars travel through the sky in a predictable geometric pattern. Once you isolate the algebraic formulas, you can say with absolute certainty the coordinates of all stars and planets at any moment in time in the past or future. If you would like to be able to map the stars in the sky in perpetuity, the software package you need to buy is Starry Night designed by a pair of University of Guelph Physicists (this would make a fantastic Christmas gift for amateur astronomers).

What has other academics concerned is that there does appear to be a confluence of events leading towards this rare solar gravitational alignment. The first being that global warming as introduced to us by Al Gore, that driving cars drives world temperature is bullshit. It was always the sun. Lots of solar activity, earth gets hot, low solar activity, earth cools. Solar cycles are indeed cyclical, and right now we are in a low cycle. Solar scientists predict that in 2012 we will be back into a high activity cycle. Does a peak in the solar cycle when matched with this rare gravitational alignment mean that the noticed effects on earth will be magnified? I suppose it is possible, however improbable. Who would have thought that world temperatures were affected by that great ball of fire in the sky, and not whether or not I take the bus to work?

Then you have Obama, Pelosi, and Frank setting global economic policy for the next few years. They will be desperate to rush through their agenda before next year's midterm elections, and they may place destructive restrictions on economic activity. The American withdrawal from Iraq while Iran is mobilizing for a showdown with Israel could destabilize the region. I fully expect Obama to pull American soldiers out of Mesopotamia by the end of his first term. The government of Pakistan seems increasingly vulnerable to radical Islam, and it is frightening to think what those nut jobs would do if they got their hands on the leadership of Pakistan and its military. So long as NATO has a 2nd front open against these revolutionaries, the probability of them sacking Islamabad is significantly diminished. NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan would remove a check and balance on a fundamentalist movement that endeavors to control the real prize in the Himalayan region, Pakistan.

Then you have the large declines in the bee populations, which we are dependent on to pollinate crops and wild plans, meaning that our food supply could be vulnerable. The collective works of Geldoff and Bono over the last 20 years have facilitated an unsustainably high population growth rate in the impoverished world; where populations have far and away outstretched their ability to feed themselves. If the grain transfers stop, all hell breaks loose. Bob and Sonny, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions...

Do I think that Armageddon is coming? No. It is possible, but I believe the smart bet is that in the end, modern civilization is extremely intelligent, adaptable, productive, and creative. I am a fan of man! I just wanted to take the opportunity to riff on Nostradamus and End of Days philosophy while the History Channel is hosting some kind of Nostradamus marathon.

Can we bust this "Holocaust never happened" myth?

I will refer you to a rant that I wrote in September 2006, in and around the time that Iran was hosting their "Holocaust never happened" conference. How do I feel about the Jews? Well as someone who is 1/4 German (my great grandparents left Germany for the New World 20 years before World War One); I feel guilt watching Schindler's List. I don't know any Jews, I can scarcely recall ever meeting any Jews, but I strongly support Israel. My 1/4 German guilt is a factor, but my 3/4 Scottish Protestant side empathizes with the atrocities that the Romans inflicted on the old Jewish State. Romans invented the Catholic Church, and the Counsel of Nicaea wrote religious history. The Protestant dominant part of me looks at the Jews and says "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" which ironically enough is an old Muslim saying. Look, the Holocaust happened. If you don't believe me, take Hitler's word for it. Watch the interviews with the Allied soldiers who liberated concentration camps. Their words alone should tell you everything that you need to know.

Here is my 2006 rebuttal to allegations that the Holocaust never happened:

Holocaust: Fact or Fiction?
Wednesday September 6, 2006 - 06:13pm

Iran will be hosting an international conference on the Holocaust in the coming weeks, asking the question of whether or not it ever happened, or was greatly exaggerated. This is an opinion expressed by Muslims, hardcore Catholics, and other assorted bigots and idiots around the world. The Arab hatred of the Jews is a no-brainer. Jews hail from the same region, and both claim Jerusalem as a cultural capital. Catholic hatred of Jews is also a no-brainer. Romans had Jesus killed, turned him into a Martyr, then made him the center of their religion and blamed the whole thing on the Jews.

Why Hitler hated the Jews so much, I am not exactly certain. I'm sure religion had something to do with it, but whether he was manipulating the prejudice of the German people or he himself had some reason to hate them, history does not know. This is what we do know for sure; Hitler preached hatred of the Jews. Between his election in 1933 and the five year build up to WWII, his government seized Jewish assets and began arresting prominent Jews. I think that the prominence of the Jews in the banking community, and the fact that the Jewish collection of precious metals shielded them from the brunt of the Great Depression created animosity between them and the majority. Think about it. The stock market crashed because people borrowed too much money without real assets to back it up. The people that survived the Depression unharmed were the people with precious metals and tangible assets to back up their holdings. Jews did that.

So imagine everyone in a country is driven into poverty, but a culture of people originally exported as slaves from their ancestral homeland to your homeland had protected themselves from the collapse? Might this upset you? Might you be easily roused by an elected government preaching their demise? I believe that the majority of Germans in WWII supported the seizure of Jewish assets, but not the genocide of the entire race. Why did the Third Reich kill so many Jews? Well, imagine that you committed terrible crimes involving forced labour, and murder and torture designed to increase the efficiency of your labour force. The order to kill as many Jews as possible was not executed until it looked like the Germans might lose the war. Instead of leaving millions of people alive who witnessed how fucked up you were, why not try and kill them all to leave no witnesses? I have actually had a number of conversations with Catholics about religion and world politics who were convinced that I am Jewish. My answer; I am a Celtic Protestant, so I have more beefs with the Catholic Church than the Jewish people...

To anyone who tries to tell me that the Holocaust did not happen, to them I say lets dig up the earth surrounding these forced labour camps and do a CSI Poland. Oh wait, historians already did that. After debating facts that we already know to be true, there will not be any doubt that the Holocaust was indeed fact, not fiction. The President of Iran is playing political chess, trying to forward a view that discredits his enemy. This comes not long after he put further restrictions on freedom of the press, and fired a number of teachers and professors at some of Iran’s most prominent schools and universities who oppose his power. Using force to eliminate the opposition of your own people in your own country to your power is counter-productive to the well being of your nation. Iran had their "Night of the Long Knives".

We didn't start the fire

“we didn’t light it, but we’re tryin’ to fight it!”

I remember September 11th 2001 as though it was yesterday, and yet it also feels so long ago. I was an economics student at the University of Guelph, and I was returning to residence after a morning class. I went into the cafeteria to get some breakfast and I looked up at the TV and both towers were on fire under the headline “America at War”. Several students were just standing there staring at the television in shock, trying to absorb what had just happened. My initial reaction was somebody needs to catch a beating for this. Then we soon learned that the attacks came from Afghanistan which was governed by these crazed fundamentalists who take parts of Islam way too fucking seriously, a country liberated from the Soviet Union with the help of billions of American dollars.

Then we learned that they did it because they are pissed off that the United States saved Saudi Arabia from the iron fist of Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden believed that his Mujahedeen should have been tapped to protect Mecca, and allowing the United States to do the entire planet a service by protecting Saudi oil fields from the firm grip of Saddam was a crime against Islam. That is the reason he cites as the justification for declaring war on America. Meanwhile, Osama should secretly be thanking the United States for saving Saudi Arabia from Saddam. Frankly the Afghan Mujahedeen defeated the Soviets by carrying weapons into mountains on mules, then hiding in protected caves, popping their heads out every so often and shooting a rocket. You can’t do that in open desert against tanks and fighter jets, and Saddam had a potent military force by the end of his war with Iran. Bin Laden’s boys would have been massacred.

The more we learned about Afghanistan and the Taliban, the more insane it became. Marred by the oppression of women, the strict interpretation of Sharia Law, and a generally backwards regressive culture. They had the opportunity to turn over Bin Laden to the United States, but instead chose the “lets get our asses kicked in for a decade or more” option and here we are today with a segment of the Pashtuns still fighting. It was never exactly clear where the Taliban ended and Al Qaeda began. There were likely frequent overlapping interests and cooperation. Then NATO came to kick a little ass and the two separate military forces simultaneously withdrew to the catacombs and seemingly morphed into a single military cooperative. They are waiting in the caves until we get tired of spending money and lives to inevitably leave.

I have been pleased with Pakistan the past few months, as all reports indicate that their military operation into the northern border region has been killing lots of bad guys. Keep it up. You can sense that NATO allies are starting to buckle under the pressure of growing domestic disapproval with foreign military campaigns. Democracies always trend towards larger opposition to a campaign the longer it lasts, with some possible exceptions. I see many experts saying that we cannot win in Afghanistan under the current rules of engagement, and even if we evolved we may never be able to clear the Himalayan Mountains of Islamic guerillas. Evidently my idea of plowing the mountains into a parking lot never gained much traction (that is sarcasm, incase you didn’t get it).

One thing that we absolutely must do is convene a think tank of the brightest military minds under the NATO tent to debate and draft a new strategy for engaging an enemy who hides by attempting to blend in to the civilian population. We need to write a new playbook, because this growing phenomenon prevalent in the Muslim resistance movements of using civilians as human shields is deplorable and must be rendered ineffective such as to eliminate the benefits to employing such a strategy. I have some ideas, but I have never been to these places and cannot write the winning solution. I hear more and more “experts” say that we should withdraw because we can’t win, which I reject in favour of figuring out how to win. Because if we give Afghanistan back to the Taliban, then we aren’t much ahead of where we were on September 10, 2001.

Today's blog post was brought to you by Billy Joel.

Re-Count implies that you counted in the first place...

The more that I hear about this “so-called” election in Iran, the more suspicious I am as to its integrity. The Grand Ayatollah has announced that a partial re-count is under way, but for the word “re-count” to be applicable, the votes would need to have been counted the first time. I am beginning to doubt that they ever were, and there is a strong case of circumstantial evidence to prove it. Hard evidence will be considerably more difficult for the outside world to acquire as I expect any proof of election rigging to be closely guarded if not destroyed.

Emperor Khomeienie and sock puppet Ahmadabajab declared a resounding victory 2 hours after the polls closed; therefore asserting that over 40 million hand marked ballots were counted in less than 2 hours. Having worked for Elections Canada in the past 2 federal elections, I can say with confidence that it is highly improbable that Elections Iran was able to accomplish such an impressive feat. I would like to know how many counters they had, because if they were able to count even close to the efficiency of Elections Canada, I calculate that they would require at least 700,000 counters to count over 40 million ballots in under 3 hours with the proper oversights and checks and balances, which does not account for registration and security personnel.

It is not impossible to count that many ballots that fast, but it would take an army of workers and I don’t know if we can ever know how many clerics were conscripted into counting. Laura Ingraham based her entire theory of a fraudulent election on the speedy declaration of victory, but again I say that it is possible however improbable.

What I find to be a more compelling indicator of a fraudulent election is in the regional disparities or lack thereof. As different polling stations around the country began reporting their “results”, Ahmadinijab was winning with roughly 63% of the vote everywhere in the country (give or take 2%-3%). When you observe the results from healthy democracies, there are huge disparities from one region to another. The probability of these analogous regional results is virtually zero, and far more improbable than counting 40 million ballots in 2 hours. But when you combine the unlikelihood of the speedy count with the impossibility of regional homogeny, the election itself is about a one in a trillion likelihood of being legit. Where the Russians tend to favour stuffing ballot boxes in their elections, it is becoming increasingly likely that Iran never counted any ballots. Either that or they sent their elections officials on a fool’s errand and modified the results.

There is another conundrum that I am struggling to wrap my brain around. All candidates for President require the approval of the Guardian Counsel to get their names on the ballot. Thus this Mousavi dude who favours increased friendliness with the West and reforming the Iranian system got a stamp of approval from the Grand Ayatollah. Clearly Khomenee did not want a reformist President, as he endorsed the status quo hard liner. Then why even put any reformers on the ballot? Or is that question moot because he never actually had a chance of winning? I’m just trying to figure out the logic of approving the candidacy of a reformer that could not be allowed to win. Having said that, I assume the Guardian Counsel never imagined that hundreds of thousands of Iranians would protest the victory of the hard line sock puppet.

What is clear is that these massive protests against the status quo does not benefit the ruling regime in any way shape or form. Hence why the Revolutionary Guard is going to great lengths to suppress them. Given that Mousavi is encouraging more protest and claiming the “Ayatollah endorsed” election results are a fraud, it is safe to assume that he is not in the pocket of Guardian counsel. I’d say either the puppet master can embrace the reformer or have him locked in a dungeon, striking the Sheppard to disperse the sheep. The latter is far more likely than the former.

It is an interesting question to ask what is leading this revolution in the Middle East towards increased democratic transparency and fairness, women’s rights, and a shift away from extremism. Christopher Hitchens recently wrote a fantastic piece where he discussed encouraging democratic trends in the region. Hezbollah suffering an embarrassing defeat in Lebanon, Iraq’s safe elections with a shift towards moderates away from militias, Kuwait electing women to parliament for the first time, and now Iran is revolting against a repressive hard line regime. There are also reports that Hamas would be soundly defeated if elections were held in Palestine today.

I have always maintained that the liberation of women is the most significant accomplishment that we could achieve to placate the region. Is it possible that the decision to place a democracy in the heart of Babylon and liberate millions of women from oppression could eventually prove to have been a progressive act of enlightenment, even if it was done for the wrong reasons? Maybe, maybe not. Only time will tell and it may yet all go to Hell. I just know that when I see thousands of people marching through the streets of Iran demanding reform from repression, it makes me feel a little more optimistic about the future of the Planet Earth.

“I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents.”

-Sir Winston Churchill

Loving Democracy

I love Democracy. Government of the people, for the people, selected by the people. When a Government is accountable to its citizenry, it is forced to make decisions on the basis of improving the lives of its people. When they fail or do a poor job, they can be ousted in a peaceful means that does not require a military coup. Chairman Mao (who I believe never ran in a single election) once said “Politics is war without bloodshed. War is politics with bloodshed.”

There are flaws in the democratic process to be sure, and it is a continuous battle to ensure that the best interests of the people are served. Sadly fundraising has a disproportionate effect over policy on the ability to get elected, and corporate sponsorship can skew policy away from the greater good. Occasionally the miraculously gifted public speakers such as Adolf Hitler and Barak Obama are able to seduce the masses into a hypnosis like the Pied Piper swooning rodents. The good news is that even the most gifted public speaker has to deliver quality of life to his electorate, because failure of government is a very strong smelling salt to snap supporters out of their political coma. I don’t care how gifted you are at performing that speech on your teleprompter; I just want to see if your policies work.

What really chaps my ass is when elections are held, people go through the process of voting believing that their opinion matters; but it doesn’t because the process is rigged and the election itself is nothing more than a fictitious ceremony to convince the populace that they support the dictator, whether they do or not. You see these charades in Putin’s Russia, Saddam’s Iraq, Myanmar, and a slew of other dictatorships masquerading as democracies. That repressive Knights of the Roundtable in Burma held an election in 1990 and lost in convincing fashion to one of my heroes Aung San Suu Kyi. They decided that they did not want to give up power and proceeded to arrest most of the people that had just defeated them in free and fair elections. (as an aside, if you have not seen Rambo 4, I strongly recommend it)

Then there are examples like Robert Mugabe, who was once truly popular with his people and was even knighted by the British. Whether he was corrupted by power or overdosed on “Marxtasy” (a word I just invented combining Marxism with ecstasy), he decided to strip the successful farmers of their land entitlements and redistribute them to poor unsuccessful farmers in the name of post colonial social justice. At the time Zimbabwe was one of the top food exporters in Africa, and they relied on agriculture for most of the country’s wealth and prosperity. While many of us may fawn over the noble deeds of Robinhood stealing from the rich to give to the poor, what may flourish in fairy tales can indeed be disastrous in reality. So what happened in Zimbabwe when they deposed the productive and elevated the inexperienced? You guessed it, massive catastrophic failure leading to the collapse of their national economy and eventually their currency. Today it costs something like 10 billion Zimbabwe dollars to buy a loaf of bread.

His policies were directly responsible for a catastrophic economic collapse, and when he held an election last year he promptly lost. For a megalomaniac running the electoral machinery to lose by 5%, likely means that his opponent realistically won by more than 30%. Did Mugabe do the honourable thing and step down? Not at all. This righteous man of the people decided to hold a new election, except this time he would improve his odds by jailing, torturing, and killing hundreds of the opposition party members and supporters. His police forces were busy little bees, ensuring that on his second attempt things would be as they ought to be in the world of the tyrant. His opponent was forced to drop out of the run-off race, lest all his political colleagues be killed or imprisoned before Election Day. It makes me sick to see a lunatic who is a disgrace to Democracy, who tarnishes the dignified concept of representative government.

I’m not sure why Marx was against democracy, I’ll have to look it up. He probably thought that people are too stupid to make an intelligent choice, which seems to be the basis for most of his theories.

And then there is Iran, but that rant will have to wait for another day…

The Prince of Persia

It would appear that there is a growing movement of dissatisfaction in the streets of Tehran, in the wake of a “landslide” victory by the “allegedly” popular Mamood Ahmenadeenajab. It is always a clear signal of a healthy democracy that when a “wildly popular” leader wins a landslide election, tens of thousands of people pour out into the streets to protest. If you did not sniff out the sarcasm in that last sentence, the objective was to use satire to illustrate that if Amhedamnedijab were indeed as popular as he claims to be, then the Iranian people would not be gathering in such staggering force to protest his “victory”. You never see crowds of angry citizens 10 miles long if the victor enjoys the support of 65% of the people. I was proud of the Iranian people who risked their freedom and safety engaging in a Tiananmen Square style gathering. So to the people of Persia, I salute you. I just hope that your bravery doesn’t get you shot or imprisoned.

I find this show of disapproval encouraging, but I am concerned that this pro-democracy protest may be crushed with a military action. I rank Ahmayabadabadoodab very high on my shit list of world leaders, but if a genie granted me the power to depose megalomaniacs, Ahmadinerjab would not be a top priority. My top three are Kim Jong “Mentally” Ill, then the sick twisted Knights of the Roundtable running Myanmar, then Comrade Hugo Chavez in a virtual dead heat with Robert Mugabe with an honourable mention to the cocksuckers running the Sudan. As crazy as I believe Ahamananananajab is, he is little more than a glorified sock puppet for the Ayatollah. I am less concerned about the Prince of Persia than I am about the Sultan, and what exactly is his end game.

The Sultan, err Ayatollah, has said publicly that God wants Ahmaboobjob to be President, a strong divine endorsement for his sock puppet. That means that the puppet master approves of all the crazy shit coming out of the puppet’s mouth. This elaborate ventriloquist act is not making the world a better place. On one hand, they advocate vaporizing Israel, while on the other are developing a nuclear program that would provide them with the capacity to do so. The excuse is that they sorely need a nuclear program to produce energy, despite Iran sitting on top of one of the largest supplies of energy in the world. It would be ironic if it were not so disturbing.

What are the benefits to antagonizing Israel by threatening to destroy them and then openly pursuing the means to do so? Are they trying to goad the IDF into a preventative pre-emptive strike? Israel has nothing at all to gain by attacking Iran and would do so only to prevent their nuclearization and their own potential destruction. Wasn’t one Jewish Holocaust enough, oh that’s right, Badmood Ahmadimajab hosts international conferences to debunk that the Holocaust ever took place. If Ahmabeeninabedwithjihad, were to tone down the anti-Semitic rhetoric and mothball the exploding atoms program, his country would benefit greatly from the increased trade and economic activity. Why they feel a combative and destructive path is the road best followed makes no sense to me. But hey, I view the world through the eyes of a practical pragmatist and the actions of some lunatics just cannot be evaluated on the basis of rational decision making.

I wish the Iranian people all the best, and I applaud their courage. Their government has two options, do a recount or suppress the protest. A recount of a rigged election accomplishes what exactly? The question is to what lengths is the Supreme Leader prepared to go to protect his sock puppet? Would this alternative reformer also allow the Ayatollah’s hand up his ass, or would he loosen the Sultan’s grip on absolute power?

Was the election fixed? I cannot prove it, but given the “alleged” level of support and the level of backlash against his victory, all signs point to yes. If one had his hands on all levers of power, which the Ayatollah does, rigging an election would be very easy. In healthy democracies, great efforts are made to separate the machinery of democracy from the coffers of power. Elections are run by independent organizations and scrutineers are allowed from all stake holders to observe the crucial voting and counting processes. Somehow I doubt that the Sultan allows this necessary level of transparency in Iranian elections. Typically in rigged elections, the ruling party asserts itself the support of 80% - 99% of voters to provide themselves with the strongest mandate possible. Clearly the puppet masters realized that the opposition to their power was too strong to assert that level of support, so it is easy to see where they came up with the figure of 63%. In 2000 George Bush won with less than 50% of the vote, but you didn’t see massive rioting in the streets of Washington. I suppose in Persia, trying to scam the voters into believing that 2/3 of the country supports the unpopular incumbent is not working, because if so these protest would not be taking place.

"The test of success is not what you do when you’re on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom."

- General George S. Patton, Jr

Racism?

I have always believed that the United Nations is an organization that provides a necessary legislative framework for international politics. Its successes may be few and far between and the laundry list of corruption and incompetence is very disturbing.

Take for example this week’s UN conference on racism. A similar summit held in 2001 quickly escalated into an anti-Semitic hatefest, prompting a number of delegates to walk out in protest. To right this wrong, the beautiful minds in the UN bureaucracy decide to take their mulligan in 2009. In a move that represents either gross incompetence or targeted malice, the racism conference began on what would have been Adolf Hitler’s 120th birthday and the keynote speaker on opening day was none other than the President of Iran; a nefarious lunatic who has called for the destruction of the Jewish State and has hosted an international symposium to prove that there was no Holocaust.

What, was Mel Gibson not available? I don’t blame the President of Iran for making his malicious statements; what did you expect? As the great philosopher and Sunnyvale Trailer Park Supervisor Jim Lahey once said “a shit leopard can’t change its spots”. Personally I blame the dunce who decided it would be a good idea to invite a zealous racist to be the keynote speaker on the opening day of a conference on racism! Ban Ki Moon, the Supreme Chancellor of the League of Nations , expressed shock and dismay that the President of Iran said what he said. Seriously? The fallacy of his naivety is astounding! That’s like having Mel Gibson write and direct Schindler’s List and then being surprised when he attempts to blame history on a Zionist conspiracy.

I applaud Barack Obama for boycotting the Conference. It would have been far more appropriate to invite the first black President of the United States to speak in lieu of a zealot. That would allow the international community to discuss the progress that has been made in the world’s most powerful nation and how that can serve as an inspirational example for countries where racism is still a serious problem. Instead they make a mockery of what should have been a hallowed institution by asking a Holocaust denier to make a speech about racism on Holocaust Day in Israel.

The United Nations is broken. Can someone please fix it?

Pakistan

I have been closely following recent events in Pakistan, and I am officially concerned that the inmates are within striking distance of taking over the asylum. My “spider sense” first started to tingle on our allegiance with Pakistan a few years ago when I watched President Mushareff appear on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart to pump his new book In The Line of Fire. Why he chose a comedy show to explain himself does not make any sense to me, but he carefully clarified his position after 9/11 as one where he could not openly declare war on the Pashtun/Taliban, but he could not avoid helping the Americans. When he said that he was forced to enter an alliance with America because of the “you’re either with us or against us” motto of the Bush Administration, I recalled the quote by Napoleon Bonaparte that “it is better to have a known enemy than a forced ally”

In the past year, Mushareff was forced out of power by political pressure and it looked as though former President Benazir Bhutto was destined to replace him, until she was assassinated. Elections were held shortly thereafter, and her impotent widow was elected President of Pakistan. The journey since that election has been a downward spiral of appeasement that would have embarrassed Neville Chamberlain. He has consistently made concessions to the Islamists and has actually lost sovereign territory within Pakistan. A further escalation of terrorist acts against India has complicated matters, as Pakistani paranoia has led to a mobilization of military forces to the border with India away from the border with Afghanistan. The Pakistani military is one of the best trained and effective on the planet; however their current objective is not doing anything to help the NATO mission in Afghanistan.

As Canadian forces are actively fighting for victory in Afghanistan, I have been analyzing what is required to achieve success. The bulk of the Afghan insurgency is not in coordinated military action, but rather destructive destabilization tactics like road side bombs and isolated terrorist attacks. The main area of concern is within Pakistan itself, and the power that the pro-Taliban Islamists are acquiring in the territory surrounding the Pakistani capitol of Islamabad. If the Pakistan army is unable or unwilling to knock out Taliban/Al Qaeda command and control within their sovereign territory, it then falls on NATO to accomplish that objective. The possibility that Islamists could ascend to political power in Pakistan and gain control of their military and nuclear arsenal is extremely alarming.

Part of the unwillingness of Mushareff to engage in open warfare in the North was because not all of them are foreign fighters. Many of them are Pakistani militants sympathetic to the Pashtun/Taliban fight in Afghanistan. It is the same element that helped defeat the Soviets 20 years ago, a large group of people who are among the friends and relatives of members of the Pakistani military. It is like if Quebec were conducting terrorist attacks in Maine, there would be conflicted feelings in the Canadian Armed Forces on the degree of force that we should employ when quelling the violence of our brethren. The question of the day is at what point does it become acceptable for NATO to invade Pakistan? Not to topple the government and occupy the country per say, but to defeat our enemies along the border in Pakistani sovereign territory? I’m not sure I want to know the answer to that question, much less see those circumstances unfold and force us into action.

I don’t even know what to call the people we are fighting. Al Qaeda has evolved to the point where small militia and rebel groups around the world have entered into a soft alliance with Bin Laden’s “movement” and run operations that senior leadership likely has no command or control over. Their common purpose is the overthrow of existing regional power structures which are currently being held together by Western capitalism. I shudder to call them rebels or revolutionaries, and instead have grown fond of “insurgents”. Many Pakistani people are actively aiding that insurgency in Afghanistan, and until Al Qaeda/Taliban are soundly defeated, I strongly believe that it is folly to withdraw.

I have been busy studying the underlying theories of guerrilla warfare, where the most influential tacticians in the modern age were Lawrence of Arabia and Chairman Mao. As Martin Van Creveld wrote;

“Drawing on his own experiences as leader of China’s civil war, Mao, followed by his Vietnamese student Giap, believed that the first phase of guerrilla warfare ought to consist of isolated hit and run attacks against enemy forces, with the aim of weakening and demoralizing them. The second phase would witness the consolidation of guerrilla power in some remote, outlying and difficult area to access; from there they would continue their work of propaganda, harassment, and sabotage. Once the enemy had been sufficiently weakened and started to retreat, the guerrillas, embarking on the third phase of the campaign, would resort to open warfare. The real trick was to select carefully the moment for this phase to begin.”

We are at a point in history where you can believe one of two possible modus operandi for Bin Laden. 1) He wants to be King of Saudi Arabia, or 2) He is actually working on behalf of the Saudi government to destabilize the Middle East and drive up oil prices. I will acknowledge that the latter is as likely as the former, but I do not believe that George Bush was in on it, despite what many popular conspiracy theorists in the United States might argue. Whatever the motive, it is clear that Osama’s objective was to draw the United States military into Afghanistan and bleed them to death like the Soviets. There Bin Laden had an existing infrastructure of caves, tunnels, and bunkers scattered throughout a remote mountain range that is extremely difficult to access. By comparison, Iraq is easily accessible by tanks and heavy machinery, and is predominantly flat desert with nowhere to hide but the cities.

During the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, there was a substantial migration of young men from throughout the Middle East, who wanted to enlist to fight the Holy war against the evil invaders. That is a big reason why the Mujahedeen were able to sustain their resistance for that many years despite being largely outmatched and sustaining heavy losses. Afghanistan is a far more challenging battleground for a conventional army, and I am sure it is the preferred theatre for Jihadists to fight their Holy War. The glitch being that the international community overwhelmingly approved of NATO military action in Afghanistan, which the Soviets did not have.

When the United States invaded Iraq “illegally” it took the focus of world attention off of Afghanistan and shifted it to Babylon. As a result, the “bad guys” then shifted many of their own resources to engage the American military in Iraq, which became the new preferred destination for so-called “weekend Jihadists” from around the Middle East. The problem for the bad guys is that it is remarkably more difficult to engage the American military in Iraq than it is in Afghanistan. Whenever they engage the Yankees in direct battle, they incur heavy losses. Therefore their objective is to blend in to the civilian population and plant bombs all over the place, targeting civilians and Americans alike. This is where they differ the most strategically from Mao, who believed in winning the popular support of the people, not terrorizing them. Now the people in Iraq have turned on the Jihadists, and most young men are joining the new Iraqi army, which is now able to conduct independent military operations. I just have absolutely no idea if the Iraqi government and military can hold it together when the United States leaves. Is it unreasonable to assume that Muqtata Al Sadr is going to attempt to overthrow the government at first opportunity despite only garnering 3% of the popular vote in the recent election?

Back in Afghanistan, the insurgents have begun to gather in larger numbers and more frequently engage NATO troops in combat. This suggests that either they are recruiting larger numbers, or for whatever the circumstances they are now emboldened and taking the offensive. I can only speculate that perhaps more insurgents are taking the long march from Iraq, across Iran, to Afghanistan. A march I assume that many young Arab combatants will be making upon American withdrawal from Iraq. You can bet Iran will facilitate this migration, if not build them a highway.

It is clear that the United States is not going to be able to pacify Baghdad indefinitely, and I don’t even know if they need to. I’m just wondering if there is a way to draw the insurgents out of the cities to be engaged in open combat out in the desert. Perhaps a Feigned Withdrawal? If they were to “fake” a hasty retreat from Iraq, where they bait the enemy with glaring weaknesses in their defenses, assuming insurgents would pursue when America withdraws; could that work? They might just let them leave, then march over to continue their fight in Afghanistan. And somebody over there is definitely trying to pick a fight with India. Whether we take the initiative and march boots into Pakistan or wait for India to ask us to is a question worth asking.

"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war"

-Albert Einstein