About Me

Name: Jack Inaboks
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

The Debate In a Box

  Last night two American men threw on dark suits, bold ties and thick makeup and flew to Ol’ Miss.  After watching and reading all the other pundits wavier and the winner, I felt it was time to dust off the ol’ blog and box up the debate for all of you.

Q:  Who was the winner?

A:  What do you mean when you say winner?  Everyone seems to think debates are 3 rounds in an octagon and one guy will come out with cauliflower ears and a concussion and the other guy will jump and scream as the ref raises his hands.  Debates may be pugilistic, but there's rarely a nock out or even a winner by points.

Q:  How did the debate play with different demographics?

18-25: Barak won the 18-25 segment solidly, his bold disregard for the experience of his elder showed he was ready to throw off the old guard and bring new vitality to Washington.  He also expressed the most ideas and philosophy, key to winning the young idealists.  McCain's comfortable grandfather appearance may have helped with some, but most likely none of them were undecided.

25+:  McCain knocked it out of the park with this group.  He clearly demonstrated his age hasn't affected his vitality and time after time hit Obama with the experience punch and all Obama could do is mutter about how these ideals didn't work, the B.O. spin seemed to be "McCain's ideas don't work, and well I'm the only other guy on the ballet so you'll have to vote for me."

35+:  Obama flat out lost in this group.  He often appeared like an upset kid in an argument with his dad about staying out too late.  The way he made his point after interrupting J.M. often appeared disrespectful and impetuous.  This may have won him votes with the young kids, but I'm sure it turned off the older segments of the population.

Men:  Toss up. 

McCain is the old vet in the pitching rotation that has a curve that'll make anyone miss and a knuckle ball from your least preferred eternal destination but came up short in the theory category.  It's pretty clear McCain isn't an idea loge but a pragmatist with conservative tendencies.

Obama clearly understands his governmental theory and this will help with the thinking types, but he's bitten on a J.M. trap.  He is no longer for generic change as he was earlier in the year when he was the darling of the U.S. of A. but is now openly advocating socialism as an alternative to our current system.

Women:  McCain in 25+ a toss up under 25.

Obama wasn't charming and lacked emotion except for the few moments he let frustration crack through his thick layer of T.V. makeup.  He delivered a good performance to the younger voters so I think it’s a tossup under 25.

McCain showed strong emotion when he talked about fixing our economy, keeping us safe and the perils facing us if B.O. is elected.  Showing that he cares, but still is strong will play very well in the long term with this demographic.

In summation, I don't think many undecided voters are now decided.  Both candidates had performances that played well to their base.  However I think J.M. made subtle inroads into the choice that undecided voters will make and in the long run will be the winner from last nights debate.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If you call me violent, iIll hit you.

From an AP story about Arab reaction to the Popes comments on Islam.

Violence erupted in some parts of the Middle East Saturday as Palestinians wielding guns,
firebombs and lighter fluid attacked four churches in the West Bank town of Nablus, while gunmen opened fire at a fifth in Gaza.


Once again the Islamic responce apears to be don't call me violent or I will hit you.
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214167,00.html
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

N. Korea Supplying Hezbullah

Debka.com is reporting that a shipment of mobile radar platforms intended for Hezbullah are being detained on Cyprus. The military radar systems where listed on the manifest as "weather observation equipment." The shipment has a final destination in Syria.

Now I know the first critic will say, well can't Syria import radar systems? Yes they can, and that is the whole point. If this shipment was intended for the Syrian military, there would have been absolutely no reason for the clandestine nature of the shipment.

Once again we are confronted with the direct collusion of the enemies of freedom and western civilization. The full onslaught is coming and it would appear the official western bird is the ostrich, head well buried in the sand.

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3251
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

9/16 - The Next Mexican Revolt

Fasten your seat belts folks, we are in for a ride. On September 16 there will plenty of fireworks for all to see, just by peering a little to the south.  Here is a babelfish translation from the oifficial Convención Nacional Democrática which the PRD and its losing presidential candidate, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, have organized:

"Today the Electoral Court of the Judicial Power of the Federation decided to confirm the fraud to the citizen will expressed in the ballot boxes the two of July and back to the delinquents who robbed the presidential election to us. With this decision the constitutional order is broken and, in the facts, the way is opened to an usurper whom it tries to occupy the Presidency of the Republic by means of a Coup d'etat."

This is their take on the Mexican court rejecting their claim of a fraudulant election, which even our dear friend Jimmy Bean Carter found to be extremely fair.  If that little bit of treason isn't enough to make you want to watch Animal planet for some sanity, bite into this tasty morsel in their Plan section:

"I propose that the Democratic National Convention solves, previous deliberation and with the free vote of the delegates, if we constituted a Government of the Republic or a Coordination of the Pacific Civil Resistance. This also implies to decide, democratically, if there will be to recognize and to ratify a legitimate President of the Mexican United States, or if the Convention chooses a Head of Government in Resistance, to the one in charge of the Executive authority, or to a National Coordinator of the Pacific Civil Resistance. All it, in as much lasts the usurpation."

Hola Revolt Con Caso and if you are a college student make a run for the tequllia while it lasts.  September the 16th may be the end of the nearly 100 years of peace on our continent.

http://www.cnd.org.mx/
http://babelfish.altavista.com/
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Face of Our Enemy

One of the grave errors American have made since 9/11 is our inablility to look our enemies in the face and recognize them for what they are, evil.  From an AP story on Pakistani Rape law:

"
Under the current law, approved by a former military dictator in 1979, prosecuting a rape case requires testimony from four witnesses, making punishment almost impossible because such attacks are rarely public. A woman who claims she was raped but fails to prove her case can be convicted of adultery, punishable by death."

The Musharraf regime is attmepting to change this law to releave some of the western human rights pressure he is fealing.  However the relegious members of the Paki government have threatened to walk out stating:

"We will render every sacrifice for the protection of the Shariah laws."

I find it difficult to fathom how so many people are willing to share the earth with such injustice and feal a little dialogue will bring peace and harmony between their ideals of civilization and our own.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060905/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_rape_law_1
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why we shouldn't use sanctions on Iran

Having spent a little too much time pondering Iran, I have come to a position unorthodox to my usual hawkish tendencies. I am not in favor of placing sanctions on Iran, unless they are a very short term prelude to armed intervention.

The point is this: Iranian youth unemployment is over 30% and is forecasted exceed 50% soon, 65% of the Iranian work force reportedly only has short term work and there is only 1 person earning an income for about every 4 Iranians. The economy of the Persian nation isn't "cooking."

Sanctions will only make this worse, which is the objective of employing them. However taking the example of post Versailles Germany a bad economy can easily be used as a tool to manipulate ones own population. By imposing economic sanctions on Iran, especially unilateral ones, we will only give Ahmadinejad the breath needed to spin half-truth propaganda off of his proficiently forked tongue.

Undoubtedly China and Russia will lend Iran the wit and might of the dragon and bear, bypassing the sanctions in ways necessary to keep the regime from booking one way Aeroflot tickets into exile. In the mean while the Iranian government will not face the mob for its economic failures by its citizens. The regime can then shift blame to the US as easily as it could beat a blind man in a game of backgammon.

In short economic sanctions will in the long or mid term strengthen the power and abilities of the Mullahs who rule the Iranians and from what we have seen in N. Korea, do little to stop nuclear or other military ambitions. There are wiser ways to pick this fight, I hope somebody in power wakes up to them.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What on earth is a citizen?

This past weekend, while I had technical difficulties with my blog, mostly occurring between my chair and the keyboard, a brave young American proudly voiced his opinions of the west and the world, embracing the despotic spew of the jihad few.

Oh wait, I'm sorry. He wasn't very brave, if he was he would be on some street corner in NY City or at the least Berkley, CA, with a megaphone and a couple thousand pamphlets ran on the student union copier during off hours. But instead he made a cameo appreance on a video recorded halfway around the world from his own home, adroitly displaying such open mindedness that I am sure Michael Moore was cast into an jealous fit.

I wish I was also wrong about the other part of my description. No not the young part, I don't espouse the theory that foolishness should be the sole property of any particular age demographic. No, I wish I didn't have to call him an American.

In addition to my national pride, which in itself is enough to send the badly bearded youthful proprietor of wisdom crying wee, wee, wee all the way home and without his roast beef, I truly do not want the legal protections of a lawful member of my nation extended to such empathetic ilk. Notice the quote from an AP story below(The complete story linked at the end of this post)

"The CIA said it had conducted a technical review on the videotape and concluded the voice is al-Zawahri's. A CIA spokeswoman said the agency is not authorized to conduct such analysis on U.S. citizens such as Gadahn."

It is insane that Adam Yehiye Gadahn cannot have his citizenship revoked for serving in Al-Qaida. Unfortunately the provisions that would automatically revoke ones citizenship only apply to those serving a foreign nation. Al-Qaida may have state level capabilities and finances, but she doesn't have the technical status so Adam gets to pick his apple and eat it too and all we can to is blog.

The current US law regarding Expatriating Status is as follows (Full info linked below)

"(2) taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);

(3) entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);"

Now what I have heard from many people who I have talked to is that our hands our bound by this law. I am one who is in favor of following the law, but I also like to think out of the box. How about we try the novel tactic of...... changing the law.

I am shocked that in all the hundreds of pages of legislation passed about terrorism that "taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a terrorist organization covered under a congressional authorization to use military force" or "entering or serving in terrorist organization engaged in hostilities against the U.S" has not been added to the law.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060902/ap_on_re_mi_ea/al_qaida_video
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

PC on Townhall.Com

PC has even invaded townhall.com.  In my previous post I tried to include the word am.p.u.ta.te.  However the PC eggheads have got onestep ahead of this blogger.  Their search of the word found pee you tee ayh in the middle of the word.  Apparently this is a spanish obsenity. Unfortunately the policing prevents the use of the ligitimate word for the removal of a limb.  What is this world coming to?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mexican Civil War?

I hate to sound ominous, but I feel the focus on an so called Iraqi civil war is completely ignoring the one brewing to our southern border. As opposition members stooped the Mexican equivalent to the state of the union by rushing Vicinte Fox and refusing to have order in their legislative hall. The open disregard for the decision of election judges and the willful distraction of government interaction is nothing less than a soft civil war.

Corruption may be a grievance to democracy, but when a close election goes your way it is not in the interest of a free and elected people to destroy their government institutions. The Mexican leftists are attempting to am.p.u.t.ate their right arm and leg because they think it has a splinter, clearly not justifiable actions.

If Al Gore succeeded in overturning Bush's victory in Florida in 2000 I would have been gravely upset and may have even marched in protest. However I think it would have been completely inappropriate for Republican congressmen and Senators to charge him during the State of the Union and prevent him from speaking. This is anarchy and attempted rule by mob. As the French revolution taught us, mob revolt, even if just, does not leave a free people, it only leaves a mob.

Even worse than this being unjustifiable, it appears from the outside to be incorrect as well. With outside observers calling the election well ordered, even those with drastically different political views from the winning candidate. The sad conclusion is that the Mexican leftists are ready to begin a civil war on false pretexts over a lost election. It seems to be the dominate left wing mindset that they have a divine right to power and that any close election they lose is a demonstration of outright tyranny by their opponents. If they follow down this path they will only destroy their own civilization. I can only pray if Mexico falls to such fools that the disease doesn't cross the border.  The positioning of our leftist doesn't give me much hope.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Fool's Pen is Mighter than the Sword

June 5th, 1944

In preparation for the upcoming invasion of mainland Europe the following day, the Allies began an extensive e-warfare campaign. They successfully jammed some of the local German communications and radar equipment. This prelude to D-Day was doubtlessly part of the victory the following day.

The Germans were dense however. They failed to realize that their first amendment rights to free press and freedom of speech had been violated. A wiser tactic than a counter attack with Panzers or ME-109s would have been the great legal system of the US. A simple lawsuit could have forced the Allies to return the small patch of Normandy they had illegally sized due to the violated rights of the poor, disenfranchised Arian-Europeans. Oh, wait. I bet Eisenhower didn’t have a search and seizure warrant either, but that’s another topic.

Well the bloody Iranian finger known as Hezbullah is not as dumb as the uberkind wannabes. Today a court is deciding if the official mouth piece of Hezbullah is protected under the 1st Amendment as a member of the press and if someone aiding the terrorists by assisting Americans with receiving their satellite TV station cannot be charged with assisting a terrorist organization.

If the case is thrown out all the next terrorist needs to do is print a news story on the outside of his suicide bomb and we won’t have the right to search or stop him. Long live the free press! I’m not in favor of regulating speech, I’m a blogger!! But if we can’t lump Hezbullah’s TV station in with the rest of that ugly lot and call it a terrorist organization we have tossed our sentient nature down the Litani. Story linked below:
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--terrorism-tv0827aug27,0,6271041.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Scuds for Hezbullah

Debka.com is reporting that Iran is in the process of transfering the Iranian version of the Scud B to the Lebanese militia.
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1205

This is significan in the fact that the UN force is now completely irrelevent.  With scuds Hezbullah will be able to strike Israel from their strongholds in the Beqaa vally or even from the far northern parts of Lebanon.  The UN mandate only covers at best the borders and the sub-Litani region.

With the Olmert government in fallout management mode and with advanced weaponry headed for Hezbullah I would not be shocked to see an "incedent" flare up combat again.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Square Wheeled Wars

Assumptions, we all have them. It is the natural progression of the human mind when only the vaguest of information is available, or I should say, observed. There is a famous exchange between Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson where Holmes asks Watson how many stairs led up to there illustrious apartment on Bakers St. Watson was unaware of their number. Holmes proceeded to illustrate the difference between seeing and observing. Often we fail to observe the obvious, letting the apparent become an unseen apparition. This can come out of habit, from tradition, based in conventional wisdom or from lack of time.

One recent example is the ever present haggling over who won in Lebanon. With only a History Channel view of war, the west finds itself bewildered over the outcome. Even with the mass proliferation of pundants no one has put forward a conclusive answer. Hezbullah got socked, losing 90+% of their long range missiles, nearly 25% of their fighting force and much of their infrastructure. However Israel still doesn't have its 2 soldiers back and Osama is now lonely at night since the Arab street has swapped beds in favor Nasralla. Lebanon clearly lost, but who won? The problem we have is an assumption about what winning means.

I remember the first shock to my assumptions about how war is fought. Way back in my teen years I found an old book in a box in my parents’ home. It was a thick and musty book, but the title quickly caught my eye: "A History of Warfare, Montgomery of Alamein." It is a review of warfare, tactics, tools and generals throughout history.

Already a history geek, much of the book was fascinating but not earth shaking. Until I got to his dissertations on modern war and read his sever doubts about the Geneva conventions. His divergence from conventional thought was not because he was a barbarian and "wanted to kill 'em #@$% all!" Rather he felt that chemical and biological weapons could be developed in less than lethal forms that could incompasitate enemies. The common assumptions would lead to more deaths than necessary.

The first General to beat the Nazis, a hero from the N. African campaign and from the Battle of the Bulge dealt the first blow to my conventional wisdom about war. More came after reading the Art of War, and simply living life. What does it mean to "win" a war, how do you achieve that? Is the war on terror different, or are we simply putting on the blinders of our assumptions and mouthing the line that victory in Iraq or the GWOT is to hard to define.

Unfortunately victory in true total war is easy to define, but no one wants to go dig out the easy answer when you can make big dough spouting needless nuance. Victory in war is achieved when you enemy no longer has the will to fight. This is entirely different that no longer having the capability to fight, which unfortunately is considered equal in modern western eyes, wich define wins and loses in terms of square miles occupied and lives lost.

Let’s return to the Lebanese situation. Hezbullah’s ability to fight is severely retarded at the moment, but their will is strengthened. They lost about 6 times as many men as Israel and an estimated $3-4 Billion in equipment. They know as well as the rest of the world that new weapons and recruits will easily fill the vacancies provided on a complimentary bases by the IDF.

Israel on the other hand lost very little. One years agricultural crop from the Galilee and around 100 casualties. However their will cracked under the mildest pressure from the most inept of all world bodies, the UN. Hezbullah came out of the scrap with two broken ribs, three missing toes and a bad concussion and Israel was stung with a hang nail and a bad zit day, but it was Israel’s lost will to fight that ended the conflict.

Ability can be rebuilt the will to fight rarely can. Look at Japan and WWII. Their strong war will propelled them into the modern industrialized world decades before the rest of Asia was thinking about it. They struck hard and fast at the US, disabling the US pacific fleet at the time. Their attack destroyed much of the US’s ability to fight at the time, but it awoke the US will. The US’s will to fight built a better fleet at break neck speed and soon was giving Japanese carriers tours of the ocean floor.

Japan did not lose their will to fight until the second nuke was dropped on their homeland. But when the giant fell, it fell hard. She went from the warrior of the rising sun to the angelic icon of a modern pacifistic nation relying on treaties and foreign powers for security. Sixty years has passed and she still remains in the state she was when pens signed her capitulation on the deck of the USS Missouri.

 "Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers. " Emperor Hirohito from his surrender address to the Japanese people.

Japan’s broken by her fears, her continued struggle had turned futile, her will was gone. The infamous war in Vietnam is similar. The US retained the most potent war machine known to man but as the faint will that was present at the engagement of hostilities faded with each horizontal refresh of the evening news the Vietcong secured victory.

So the question for today is what action are we taking to break our enemy’s will to fight and what is attacking our will. As long as we view victory in terms on territory occupied or lives taken and or lost our victory will remain elusive even while all of the enemy’s tactics are based on breaking our will to fight.

Victory will never come home to the capitals of the west until we become determined to crush our opponent’s will to fight, and I quite fear that our willingness to fight will snap in the face of terror long before we realize what true victory really looks like. We can't win fighting a square wheeled war.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »