Posts by James Bremner
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
More on Iran
Now here is an interesting article on Iran. Can't vouch for its accuracy, but some of the suporting evidence (levels of youth unemployment and drug addiction) are well known.
-
Danyl,
I read stuff by reasoned and calm people who do or do not fit my view of the world, and I read stuff by people who shoot their mouths off and partisans of both sides as well. Calm sounding people or non partisans do not have a monopoly on wisdom and insight. When you read or listen to these types, you obviously need to maintain an appropriate level of skepticism, but there is plenty to be gained.
In this case the guy had some interesting stuff from soldiers on the ground in Iraq; you did yourself a disservice by dismissing it. -
Danyl,
Try reading something that doesn't fit your view of things every now and again and challenge your understanding of things. I do it frequently and it is very worthwhile.That link you dismissed has some quotes from soldiers on the ground in Iraq, I suspect they might know a thing or two more about what is really happening in Iraq than you and I do.
-
Yes - thank goodness the US decided to stand up to Germany before they could cause any REAL harm.
Post WWII, the Yanks recognized that they had screwed up by being isolationist in the 1930s. Truman's containment policy toward the Soviet Union was a result of that understanding.
Back on the "What happens next" subject, here is an thoughtful article that is worth a read.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/will_the_west_stumble.html
Here is some positive news from Iraq that you wont see anywhere in the media in NZ or the US.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2976
Simon,
I have to say I wouldn't bet five cents on a word Seymor Hersh writes. Sometimes he gets close to getting it right, but other times, more frequently, he gets it so wrong it is sad.There isn't any dispute over the existence of Iran's nuke program, only uncertainty over how close they are to being able to produce their own bombs. I saw it reported just the other day the IAEA found traces of plutonium at an Iranian site, and previously traces of highly enriched uranium have been found. Giving the current Iranian regime the benefit of the doubt as to how far along it is in its quest for nukes and what its intentions are once they have nukes is a huge, high stakes gamble. I don't understand why anyone would take that bet.
-
Simon,
I wish I could be as relaxed as you are about Iran, but to me the facts just don't support taking a laid back approach to these guys. I don't buy for a second that Armadinajad's words have been mistranslated or misinterpreted; Iran has held conferences on Holocaust denial and the elimination of Israel. Killing Jews and Infidels and spreading Islam worldwide is job number one according to the Koran. I think it is quite strange to be certain that they don't mean what they say. Now, as to whether the Iranians would lob a nuke at Israel as soon as they get one off their production line, I agree that that is another question, but I am with Winston Churchill on this one. His basic approach to Hilter pre WWII was "if in doubt, take the bastard out". Real shame that the "know it alls" in the 1930s all "knew better" that Churchill, their "wisdom" cost 60 million people their lives.To me it comes to the answer to 2 questions: does a regime have the intent to do harm and, does that regime have the capability to do harm? If the answer to those 2 questions is, probably, then the world is a better place without that regime. I would add another level to that approach. Are they rational and do they want to live? The Soviets were rational and wanted to live so you could construct a strategy based on deterrence, as for Armadinejad, I wouldn't bet anyone's life on what happens between his ears. In fact based on the frequency and apparent enthusiasm that Islamic suicide bombers blow themselves to bits in their desire to kill infidels, assuming that the Iranians will be rational with any nukes is like playing Russian roulette. Pre 9/11 anyone who suggested that the US needed to take out the Taliban to disrupt Al Qaeda was derided as a nut and a loon. Well guess what, turns out they were right.
There is a strategy that could work to get rid of the Iranian regime without invasion or bombing, neither of which is a particularly attractive option. It is referred to as the Polish model, which is a strategy based on supporting opposition groups to destabilize and undermine the regime, like the US did with Solidarity in Poland. I read the other day (at Stratfor, I think) that there have been several bombings in Iran's major oil production region, to which I would say, "Why didn't this start 5 years ago?" It is the only option for a good resolution to the current Iranian regime.
As for killing people, regimes of the left have the US beat 10 or more likely 100 to 1, and they left basket cases of countries in their wake. Mao killed 60 million of his own people, Pol Pot killed 3 million (I think it was 3, it might have been 6), Castro is a bit of a bungling fool compared with those 2 but he has killed thousands and thousands of Cubans and I think the estimate for those lost at sea while trying to escape his "workers paradise" is 75,000. Add in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe pre 1989 ... the list of the left’s handiwork goes on and on ...
Why is it that those on the left always want to accuse the US of mass murder when their own team has gold medal in mass slaughter wrapped up by a huge, huge margin? Would that be hypocrisy?
-
Simon,
Most countries the USD supports with foreign or military aid and equipment are reasonable countries that are looking to protect themselves and do not threaten other countries. There have been some exceptions to this rule, particularly during the cold war when zero sum thinking, "he is either going to be our guy or the Soviet's guy" necessarily prevailed, but the general rule prevails.
The choices involved with Pakistan are unfortunately either bad or worse. The US can support and try to work with and influence Musharrif, or undermine him and possibly end up with a Taliban like regime in control of Pakistan nukes. What would you do differently in this situation? I have to admit I don't see any better options than those currently being pursued by the US Admin, and these choices won't change in 2009 when a new US Admin comes in.
India is a stable functioning democracy that doesn't threaten anyone, other than Pakistan should it launch a nuke at India first. Sharing nuclear technology with India so they can build nuke power plants and so build fewer polluting coal fired plants seems to me to be a good idea. It also brings one of the emerging powerhouses of this century closer to the US.
The current Iranian regime is a vile regime that abuses and subjugates its own people and repeatedly threatens other countries, particularly Israel.
In sane circles, the Holocaust is agreed to have happened and that it was a bad thing. Iran has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map in a second Holocaust (which countries that the US supports with foreign or military aid have made such a threat? That would be none). I can't understand why everybody in the world doesn't want Iran stopped ASAP, by any means necessary. Iran has been the world's the primary sponsor and supporter of terrorism since 1979, threatens its neighbors and the other countries in the world and promises to ensure the world becomes Islamic. These guys with nukes is a horrible thought.
As for North Korea, a regime that let 2 1/2 million of its own citizens starve to death in the late 1990s and would sell anything to anyone at any time if it thought it could get away with it, in order to keep its leadership supplied with cognac and hookers.
How anyone would feel comfortable with either of those regimes in possessions of nukes and the missiles to launch them, is beyond me, the world would be a significantly more dangerous place.
Simon, how would the world be a better place or at least not more dangerous if Iran and NK had nukes?
It seems to me stopping these regimes from getting nukes should be a very high priority for any rational person and country, and no, that is not hypocritical. -
Lee,
Glad to help remove the fog for you, shouldn't be too hard. Some quick stats right off the top of my head before I go home tonight:
US citizens
Unemployment at 4.4%, below the 20 year historical average, lower than during almost all of the 1990s, except right at the top of the internet bubble in 1998 and 1999.
Last 12 month annual growth in wages and salaries, 3.9%, above the 20 year historical average of 3.5%
Net household assets increased from about $40 trillion to $53 trillion between 2000 and 2nd quarter 2006.
Dow at a record high
Federal and many State tax receipts at record highs
The strong economic growth under pinning the above statistics has been caused by low interest rates and the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and some legislation aimed at reigning in junk law suits.
No Child Left Behind program enacted in 2001 to try to improve education performance at US schools
Multi billion dollar Prescription Drug program enacted in 2003 or 2004 to help those on low incomes or those with high prescription drug bills to get the medications they need.
Various surveillance and anti terror programs both in the US and internationally to disrupt terrorist activities and prevent more 9/11s
Multi-lateral Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) to stop the trafficking of wmd materials and wmd making materials. This initiative was responsible for intercepting a freighter carrying wmd material to Libya, and when confronted, Gahadafi 'fessed up and gave up all his wmd materials.
Multi year, multi-lateral diplomatic efforts to try to stop crack pot regimes in North Korea and Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Efforts, so far with out much success, to make the UN reform itself into a less corrupt and more effective organization after the Oil for Food and various other scandals (procurement corruption and sex for food scandals in several African UN missions).
Foreign Aid projects
The biggest new foreign aid project that comes to mind is Bush's $15 billion Aids program in Africa, which has been going for about 2 years and is starting to make a difference.
The US spends more than any other country on Aids research and environmental technology, research like clean coal and hybrid vehicle technologies (hydrogen cars, fuel cells, and battery technology).
There is much more here but I don't have the stats at my finger tips.
As far as which type of person gives the most to charities, this study was referenced on Drudge today, just in time to reply to your post!! You probably won’t like the conclusion too much, but there isn’t anything I can do about that!!
-
Re: Pelosi's poor judgement
Even the New York Times gets in on the act and gives her a raspberry ... For the NYT to bash the first woman Dem Speaker before she has even taken over, now that has to be quite an achievement!!
It most certainly does not bode well for the future achievements of the newly Dem house.
-
Since this thread was originally about "What Happens Next?", I thought I would share some of what has happened next.
Not a good start for Nancy. She got her ass handed to her by her own caucus!!
By Howard Fineman, who is a very middle of the road reporter for Newsweek andNBC/MSNBC, so his comments about how far left Pelosi is serve as a rebuttal to the poster who disagreed with me about where Pelosi is on the political spectrum. According to Fineman her views are "..those beliefs are so outside the mainstream...". 'Nuff said!!
Newsweek's Howard Fineman charts Nancy Pelosi's first pratfall.
The GOP cannot count on the new Speaker to be a disaster, but Democrats have to worry that the skills set necessary to manage an ideologically diverse majority are not going to come naturally to a San Francisco hyper-liberal. California Democrats generally, and San Francisco Democrats specifically are a hard left bunch, and the deeply ingrained habits of the Dems on the left coast almost always involve going further left, not to the center. It may be that Pelosi's instincts didn't fail her when she publicly backed her antiwar pal Murtha.
She may not have any political instincts, only a very rigid, very uncompromising ideology. Radaractive has more on San Francisco values and whether they will travel well. Yesterday's embarassing loss may alert Pelosi that the Speaker's gavel isn't a taser, but it is very possible that Pelosi will not have it in her to compromise her own beliefs, and those beliefs are so outside the mainstream that the Democratic Caucus could become one long shout-fest. We don't know, but if Jane Harmon does indeed get booted from the Intelligence Committee, we will have another indication of the Pelosi Way. Carol Platt Liebau, who guest hosts for me today, has more on this next choice the new Speaker will make.
-
Danielle,
Re: FEMA
We have been disagreeing on which organization was responsible for disaster preparation and response in relation to Katrina. You say FEMA and I say local and state Govt.
The link below is to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/Katrina/ExecSum.pdf
Here is what is stated regarding authority (bottom of page 3)
"It has long been standard practice that emergency response begins at the lowest possible jurisdictional level – typically the local government, with state government becoming involved at the local government’s request when the resources of local government are (or are expected to be) overwhelmed. Similarly, while the federal government provides ongoing financial support to state and local governments for emergency preparedness, ordinarily it becomes involved in responding to a disaster at a state’s request when resources of state and local governments are (or are expected to be) overwhelmed."
"Louisiana’s Emergency Operations Plan explicitly lays out this hierarchy of response."
Seems pretty clear to me.
The Local and State govts can request help from the Feds, but unless the Governor specifically hands over authority to the Feds, the Governor is in charge of disaster response. Bush tried to get Governor Blanco to agree to federalize the disaster response authority, but after taking 24 hours to "think about it" she said no. I am not sure that it was a good idea anyway.
To reiterate, I am not suggesting in anyway that FEMA and the Feds did not screw up, they did, especially FEMA, and the Senate reports describes their failings in detail. What I am saying is that there was plenty of blame to go around and that all parties involved in Katrina, in both their preparations and response to Katrina, screwed up and therefore share in the blame. It is simply inaccurate and unreasonable to say that it was all FEMA and the Administrations fault when local and state govt were in charge and made substantial and consequential mistakes.
Here is some of what the report states about the failure of local and state leadership.
“The Committee believes that leadership failures needlessly compounded these losses. Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco –who knew the limitations of their resources to address a catastrophe—did not specify those needs adequately to the federal government before landfall. For example, while Governor Blanco stated in a letter to President Bush two days before landfall that she anticipated the resources of the state would be overwhelmed, she made no specific request for assistance in evacuating the known tens of thousands of people without means of transportation, and a senior state official identified no unmet needs in response to a federal offer of assistance the following day. The state’s transportation secretary also ignored his responsibilities under the state’s emergency operations plan, leaving no arm of the state government prepared to obtain and deliver additional transportation to those in New Orleans who lacked it, when Katrina struck. In view of the long-standing role of requests as a trigger for action by higher levels of government, the state bears responsibility for not signaling its needs to the federal government more clearly”.
Again, that is pretty clear.
With regard to the levee maintenance issue. You cite a Corp guy, Al Naomi, who states that "it would be better if the levees were raised".
The 17th street and London canal levees, which caused most of the damage to New Orleans (by $ value) broke before they were overtopped, so it wouldn't have made any difference if the levee wall had been made higher, they would have broken just the same.
More maintenance is a good thing, but it can't make up for the kind of fundamental design flaws outlined in the IPT report. Insufficient or inadequate maintenance was mentioned in passing as an "additional negative factor" i.e it wasn't a major or the major cause, it was one of a number of things that didn't help but did not cause the levee system to fail. That is why I haven't seen or heard anywhere of maintenance being discussed as a big issue. Because, as the IPT report makes clear, inadequate or faulty maintenance wasn't a big issue in the failure of the levee system.
As for the Katrina disaster .."being predicted in 2004 and earlier..". It has been predicted for a lot longer than that. The Corp was told 20 plus years ago when they proposed some of their levee designs that they were unsuitable and would most likely fail. They built them anyway. State and local govt. had however many years to get their acts together, but didn't. Katrina was a multi-faceted disaster that was years, even decades in the making.
With regard to citing people I know here who have knowledge and expertise on the subjects we are discussing, why wouldn't I cite them to support my argument? I don't understand why you find that so unacceptable. For example, if you happened to know someone who was an engineer who knew about building stadiums, wouldn't you cite that person’s view in a post that you made about whether or not to build a stadium on the waterfront? I would hope that you would, as it would add to your post and perspective.
Anyway, for what it is worth I think I have proved my view quite well. On another matter, as Danyl pointed out, I made some snarky comments in some of my posts. My apologies, I shouldn't have done that.