Blog @ MoreWhat.com

crossposted at Maggie’s Notebook

As much as China and Russia have demonstrated their opposition toward ’sanctions’ against Iran’s nuclear pursuits more impotent reaction appears forthcoming from the security council at the United Nations. As noted below, a ‘fourth round’ of UN sanctions indicates previous provisions have accomplished nothing.

If Iran sends uranium to Turkey and Brazil for further enrichment with the stated medical purposes expressed a minimum of several questions come to mind. What is to stop others from intercepting and/or advancing enrichment to weapons grade? What value can sanctions have if they have not worked to date and Iran’s nuclear pursuit advances unchecked?

Spokespersons from Iran and Turkey have offered political rhetoric on the topic. Western nations have expressed a real concern that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Also in the report below readers are reminded of frequent expressions from Iranian leaders that they intend to eliminate the state of Israel.

And the past and current situation with Iran has done nothing to resolve these issues. But it has allowed Iran to continue unimpeded. It is long past the time for an effective response to Iranian nukes. And all that sending uranium around the planet achieves is higher risk that the material will be used by rogue states or terrorists supported by them.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA News….

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the United States and other major world powers have agreed on a draft resolution that could impose a fourth round of United Nations sanctions on Iran.

Clinton made the announcement in testimony to a Senate committee Tuesday, a day after Iran announced a plan to send some of its enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for nuclear fuel.

The Security Council is set to hold consultations on the sanctions draft Tuesday.

Clinton said the plan followed talks among the five permanent Security Council members - the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia, as well as Germany.

She noted the agreement had been reached in cooperation with China and Russia - two nations that have previously resisted imposing more sanctions on Tehran.

On Monday, Iran signed an agreement with Turkey and Brazil to send 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for higher-enriched nuclear reactor fuel to be used in a medical research reactor in Tehran.

Both Turkey and Brazil are non-permanent members of the Security Council.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast accused Western nations Tuesday of “seeking excuses” to avoid resolving the nuclear dispute with his country.

Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said talk of sanctions could “spoil the atmosphere” and lead to an “escalation” of statements that might “provoke” Iranian public opinion.

The United States and its Western allies accuse Iran of working to make a nuclear weapon. Iran says its atomic program is for peaceful purposes.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with top Cabinet members Tuesday to consider a response to the Iranian plan.

Israel views a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to its existence because of repeated calls by Iranian leaders for the demise of the Jewish state.

The Day of Infamy

The attack on Pearl Harbor was the culmination of a decade of deteriorating relations between Japan and the United States over the status of China and the security of Southeast Asia. The breakdown began in 1931 when Japanese army extremists, in defiance of government policy, invaded and overran the northern-most Chinese province of Manchuria. Japan ignored American protests, and in the summer of 1937 launched a full-scale attack on the rest of China. Although alarmed by this action, neither the United States nor any other nation with interests in the Far East was willing to use military force to halt Japanese expansion.

Over the next three years, war broke out in Europe and Japan joined Nazi Germany in the Axis Alliance. The United States applied both diplomatic and economic pressures to try to resolve the Sino-Japanese conflict. The Japanese government viewed these measures, especially an embargo on oil, as threats to their nation’s security. By the summer of 1941, both countries had taken positions from which they could not retreat without a serious loss of national prestige. Although both governments continued to negotiate their differences, Japan had already decided on war.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was part of a grand strategy of conquest in the Western Pacific. The objective was to immobilize the Pacific Fleet so that the United States could not interfere with these invasion plans. The principal architect of the attack was Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Combined Fleet. Though personally opposed to war with America, Admiral Yamamoto knew that Japan’s only hope of success in such a war was to achieve quick and decisive victory. America’s superior economic and industrial might would tip the scales in her favor during a prolonged conflict.

Pearl Harbor: 68 years (Michelle Malkin) 

If you are content with the Obama Administration’s handling of matters regarding nuclear weapons and Iran the following information should cause you to reconsider that position.

[But] the more telling detail, as a recent White House “guidance paper” acknowledges, is that the U.S. has been “carefully observing and analyzing this facility for several years.” That timeline is significant, because it was less than two years ago, in December 2007, that a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear programs asserted with “high confidence” that Tehran had “halted its nuclear weapons program” in the fall of 2003.

That NIE gave liberals and Iran a reason to cheer. Some internal critics in the Bush Administration may have sabotaged national security for political gain.

Fast forward to the present, and it turns out the NIE was misleading even on its own terms: Iran did have a covert facility, perhaps for enrichment, and the intelligence community knew or at least strongly suspected it. We are also learning that the NIE’s judgment puts the U.S. intelligence community at odds with its counterparts in Britain, Germany and Israel, which have evidence to show that Iran resumed its weaponization work after 2003.

Three US allies indicate Iran resumed the pursuit of nuclear weapons after 2003 yet the US report cited above held the opposite view. Red flags abound in this story if for no other reason then both positions cannot be correct. If the ‘allies’ assertion is correct then once again US intel is suspect. And if the Obama Administration is acting like the Qom facility is news to them more red flags are raised. Including support for the criticism that current US foreign policy is a strategy of appeasement. In which history and Neville Chamberlain serve as guidance in avoiding a 21st century failure.

Here are some recent reports demonstrating the complacency on the topic of Iranian nuclear weapons.

UN Nuclear Inspectors to Tour Iran’s Second Enrichment Plant Near Qom
Iran’s English-language Press TV reports that International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors are beginning a three-day visit to Iran, Saturday, to examine the country’s Fordoo nuclear enrichment facility.

The timeline suggests a month long delay between Iran’s preemptive disclosure about the facility in Qom and an impotent UN inspection.

Iran to Respond to UN Uranium Proposal Next Week
Iran has delayed its response to a United Nations-backed uranium enrichment plan aimed at easing international concerns that Iran’s nuclear program is being used to develop weapons.

Above is one more example in an extremely long list of delaying tactics the rest of the world allows Iran to use.

US Says Patience With Iran on Nuclear Issue Not Unlimited
At a news briefing, State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly said the United States would obviously have liked to see an Iranian reply but is willing to give Tehran a few more days. “We’re looking for concrete steps. And we take it as a positive sign that they’ve agreed in principle to take a couple of significant steps - the opening of the Qom facility, and then working out a procedure for having their low-enriched uranium re-processed in another country. At the same time, our patience is not limitless. I think we can stretch things out a few days, and that’s really what we’re talking about. But we’re not going to wait forever,” he said.

Equalling the extremely long list of Iranian delay tactics are statements from the US suggesting ‘we are really serious this time’. There is an uncanny similarity between US rhetoric on Iranian nukes and the useless parental response to a child allowed to dictate the rules.

The US, UN, IAEA and the remainder of the ‘international community’ have not just recently adopted an Iranian appeasement strategy like the parent who spoiled the child with lack of discipline. A list of resources below aid in demonstrating this point.

IAEA, Multilateral Talks, Iran Nukes, What’s Changed?

IAEA, International Community Complicit in Iran’s Nuke Strategy

Iran, the UN, IAEA, Elbaradei and Do-Nothings

IAEA Paper Tiger vs Iranian Nukes

Democrats Raise White Flag in Advance on Iran Nukes

Bush Warns Iran If Controversial Nuclear Work Continues…

US Criticizes Iran’s ‘Partial Answers’ on Nuclear Program

UN: Iran Still Defying Demands to Stop Enriching Uranium

US Spars With IAEA Chief ElBaradei Over Iran

Iran Says 3,000 Centrifuges Are Operational

US Official Criticizes Iran, IAEA Deal on Nuclear Program

IRAN, IAEA Make Progress in Nuclear Talks

IAEA Says Iran to Allow Inspections of Heavy Water Reactor

The bulk of the items above are from 2007 with some from 2009. The titles alone suggest the recurring theme of Iran’s delays and the wait and see appeasement of everyone else. If there’s a betting line in Vegas on this story one would have to guess the odds on favorite is Iran. With time being about the only thing the Iranians need to complete their pursuit of nuclear weapons they have one each round of this game.

One way or another this game will end sometime. An appeasement strategy ushered in WWII. Can we afford to make the same mistake on the possibility of WWIII?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

No one wants to air their dirty laundry in public. But that doesn’t stop it from happening. It seems that when most countries are the subject of criticism about their history those raising the issue are not from the target country. Currently some in the UK are defending their brand of healthcare against criticism from those debating a similar issue in the US. Iran and North Korea are getting criticized by just about every other country for their pursuit of nukes and their subsequent denials or lame justifications for it. And the US gets criticized for just about anything and everything. A likely downside to being on top of the pile. And Russia is not exempt from criticism either.

Sunday, August 23, marks the 70th anniversary of the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - the non-aggression treaty signed in 1939 by Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. The pact included a secret protocol dividing Eastern and Central Europe into Nazi and Soviet spheres of influence. Days after it was signed, first German and then Soviet forces invaded Poland.

This kind of discussion will ruffle the Bear’s fur. Drawing comparisons between Stalin and Hitler will not go unnoticed in Russia. …’ in May, President Dmitri Medvedev issued a decree setting up a presidential commission to counter what he called attempts to “falsify history.” ‘ And then there is mention of something that seems akin to Russia’s Soviet legacy. ‘ Russian Emergency Situations Minister Sergei Shoigu introduced legislation in parliament that would make it a crime to deny the Soviet victory in World War II.’ The criticism is having the expected reaction in the Kremlin and elsewhere.

So what else are the critics saying? Dmitry Furman of the Russian Academy of Science’s Institute of Europe calls the presidential commission to counter what it deems historical falsification an “idiotic undertaking” and a “very bad idea.” He also says Stalin’s government killed as many, or even more people than Hitler’s.

But, given the suffering Russians endured after Hitler turned on Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union, Furman says it is natural that many resist equating Stalinism and Nazism.

Furman says it is “very difficult psychologically” for Russians to put what they see as their “victors” in the Great Patriotic War, as they call World War II, on the same level with the vanquished Nazis.

This might be a case of forgetting to note that Stalin was not representative of the Russian people. It may be difficult indeed for Russia to come to grips with the legacy of a madman.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A few days ago German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated new sanctions against Iran would be considered if no agreement on negotiations was reached by September. Iran continues to claim their nuclear program is for energy purposes while many other countries suggest they are pursuing nuclear weapons. This is not a new story. After previous sanctions, UN resolutions and other lame attempts to persuade Iran to abandon the pursuit of nukes this ineffective strategy has been no more successful than similar tactics against North Korea on the same issue.

Are the world’s most powerful nations as ignorant and inept as their actions in this matter demonstrate? Or is it a simple matter of no one wanting to be the first to take effective action against Iran and North Korea? Will this situation escalate among ‘rogue’ nations of the world until one of them launches a strike against a perceived or stated foe? Or will Israel lose its patience with the so-called international community and its lack of suitable action and take matters into their own hands?

If the US, Russia, China and other nations continue to postpone what is necessary regarding Iran, North Korea and others pursuing nukes the question will not be who has them but when will they be used. If that is allowed to happen the scenario returns to that of the sixties. Before, during and after the Cuban Missile crisis in 1962 the idea of MAD, mutually assured destruction, was considered the concept which avoided WWIII and a nuclear winter or the planet ceasing to exist. It is reasonable to assume those seeking nukes these days are not dissuaded by this concept.

So why are the other nations of the world doing nothing about this?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has circulated his latest reports on nuclear safeguards in Iran and Syria to Member States. The report outlines developments since the Director General´s report of 5 June 2009.

Circulation of the reports is restricted; they cannot be released to the public unless the IAEA Board decides otherwise.

General Mohamed ElBaradei has circulated his latest report on nuclear safeguards in Iran to the Agency´s Board of Governors, the 35-member policymaking body. The Board next convenes in Vienna on 7 September.

So here’s a recent Arab response on Iran’s nuclear program.

Israeli nuclear weapons and Western hypocrisy
By Yusuf Fernandez (Source: thepeoplevoice.org)

Once again, Arab states have announced that this year they will submit a resolution at September’s general assembly of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in order to force Israel to sign the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and open up its secretive military nuclear program to international inspections.

The article also suggests ‘Israel’s rejection to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as the main obstacle to global nuclear disarmament.’ After stating that Israel has nukes with a 2000 km range and able to reach any Arab capital the article changes direction with ‘Israel is one of the few states in the world that have refused to sign the NPT and is reportedly the only state in the Middle East having nuclear weapons.’

Reportedly the only state in the Middle East having nukes, indeed. ‘Iran has repeatedly assured that its nuclear program is peaceful…’ Repeatedly ‘assured’ is the key here.

You may recall that Saddam Hussein commented after being apprehended from a hole in the ground that he did nothing to convince the world Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction for fear of looking weak to ‘his’ neighbors in the region. Had he not chosen that strategy he may have avoided another confrontation with the US military accompanied by the inevitable outcome. As if Desert Storm in 1991 was not proof enough he could not win a war against the US after invading Kuwait.

Like Iraq’s former ‘leader’ Saddam Hussein, Iran’s leadership behaves in a similar manner allowing statements calling for the destruction of Israel to stand refusing to recognize Israel’s right to exist and yet claim their nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful. They now promote the notion of ‘Western hypocrisy’ while they express the desire to destroy Israel and at the same time define their nuclear program as ‘peaceful’.

If you are curious to know who is Yusef Fernandez the following is from Frontpage magazine. ‘Yusuf Fernandez, the spokesman for the Spanish Federation of Islamic Religious Entities…‘

Some additional information may be found useful as well.

In 1967 the first law allowing the Muslims to organize themselves, after a parenthesis of centuries, was promulgated in Spain, leading to the establishment in 1968 of the first local Muslim Association in Spain in Melilla, and in 1971, the first national association, the Association of Muslims in Spain (AME), which has its headquarters in Madrid. Under the Spanish Constitution the Statutory Law of Religious Freedom is promulgated, now in force, and the Union of Islamic Communities in Spain was constituted (UCIDE), as well as the Spanish Federation of Islamic Religious Entities (FEERI), which together constitute the Islamic Commission of Spain (CIE), which is a member of the Muslim Council of Cooperation in Europe (MCCE)[1]in Brussels, which is a consultative body to the European Union.

So the IAEA reports to this point have solved nothing as indicated in numerous reports in the ‘media’.

Yossi Melman / The IAEA report on Iran lacks the bottom line

‘IAEA hiding incriminating evidence’

UN nuclear watchdog denies hiding Iran information

UN reports increase in Iranian uranium programme

IAEA to report Iran atom slowdown ahead of talks

Iran, Syria have not carried out sufficient cooperation in …

Iran is continuing nuclear activity, says United Nations watchdog

Iran Claims Report ‘Vindicated’ Nuclear Program

Iran dismisses nuclear assessment

Iran is stonewalling the UN nuclear watchdog agency about “possible military dimensions” to its suspect nuclear programme, officials have said.

The UN is urging the regime to clarify the mysterious role of a foreign explosives expert and shed light on other issues.

A senior Iranian envoy angrily denounced the assessment as “fabrication,” insisting his country has gone out of its way to be transparent and co-operative.

In its latest report, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it has pressed the Islamic Republic to clarify its uranium enrichment activities and reassure the world that it is not trying to build an atomic weapon.

Iran insists its nuclear programme is peaceful and geared solely toward generating electricity. The United States and key allies contend the country is covertly trying to build an atomic weapon.

These stories support comments suggesting the ‘international community’ response to the nuclear ambitions of Iran, North Korea and others is impotent. They do nothing about the problem outside of promoting resolutions at the equally impotent United Nations. This criticism includes the IAEA.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The first video may not be so impressive unless you are familiar with the history or background of the Messerschmidt Me 262 jet aircraft. That’s why the second video is presented. Although this story is not new bringing back something which barely missed extinction in the face of historic events is a good thing in this case.

The next video is by description a clip and ends rather abruptly but you’ll get the idea if you need some background information. The introduction of jet engine technology and jet powered flight was being developed around the time of WWII. This bird is certainly part of that chronology and history. An impressive early entry into this technology.

Just a little Sunday distraction the selection of which was influenced by the blog author’s personal bias and serious interest and participation in aviation. (and partly by chance)
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It is probably too early to draw a conclusion on President Obama’s reported ‘go ahead’ order on the Navy Seals mission to end the hostage situation involving Somali ‘pirates’ (thugs, terrorists, extortionists) and a now famous Captain Phillips of the ship Maersk Alabama. With one 16 year old perp in custody and Phillips still being held hostage, under imminent threat of death, the Navy team took out the remaining three thugs effectively freeing the captain from his captors.

If reports are accurate and President Obama twice gave the order to proceed then he should receive credit for doing the right thing. But that is what he is supposed to do, the right thing. While doing the right thing is subject to debate even in this case the outcome could have been a problem. What if the plan went forward and disaster was the result? That is the difficulty in doing the right thing under these circumstances. There would have been no shortage of criticism. So it was not an easy call contrary to what popular opinion might be but it was the right thing to do. And on that note this blog offers its first positive response to the new President.

Be it known that it is for this event and this event only that the positive response is offered. For between the Presidential agenda and the main stream media, what of it still remains viable, the phony treatment of current events distort reality. A report from AP this weekend emphasizes this assertion.

Obama Hopes to Use Dealmaking Skills Honed Abroad
Sunday, April 12, 2009 8:33 AM
WASHINGTON –

Let’s make a deal.

President Barack Obama honed his dealmaking skills on his maiden international trip, to Europe and the Middle East.

The trip helped burnish his image abroad. But can he translate that into getting his legislative priorities through Congress, where partisan lines continue to harden?

Analysts say the generally positive reception to his first venture on the international stage can’t hurt. But foreign-policy successes don’t necessarily mean achievements at home.

What analysts say any of that? Where are they? Why does the AP report not refer to them by name and offer supporting resources or evidence? Could it be the author is making it up? Like Obama suggested of those who presented less than flattering information on him during the 2008 campaign. ‘They’re just making it up.’

Analysts say. Sources say. Unnamed sources say. High level sources close to the President say. Under the promise of anonymity so and so said. This is not convincing. Right out of the gate on this one the AP is helping support the notion that the MSM is a fraud.

In the very next paragraph after such a pathetic beginning with the AP report the following was concluded. Obama helped negotiate a compromise among world powers to battle the global recession, helped break a deadlock over NATO’s next secretary-general and helped coordinate NATO’s strategy for Afghanistan. Where do they get this stuff? The G20 was a flop. Go read the statements of Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown and others at the G20. You will, if you haven’t already, see a different outcome from this particular international political show. Economic pledges of a trillion dollars do not a success make. No ‘fighting’ troops to Afghanistan from the EU is not an accomplishment. There is nothing about the G20, the UN, NATO or Obama that suggest the glowing report offered by the AP.

He agreed to restart languishing nuclear arms control talks with Russia, laid down a marker on terms for a Palestinian state, delivered a strong pitch for allowing Turkey to join the European Union and sought to heal a rift between the U.S. and the Muslim world.

Appeasement, surrender, appeasement, appeasement in that order on the last misguided excerpt from the report by AP. For a more realistic view on the nonsense that is President Obama’s agenda and his crews’ efforts thus far is another promotion from this blog to read yet another piece from George Will.

Rice really thinks there is a community out there. To believe that is to believe, as liberals do, that harmony is humanity’s natural condition, so discord is a remediable defect in arrangements.

Regarding North Korea’s missile launch, Rice was very stern. She said the U.N. Security Council would “meet,” and there would be “consultation with our partners,” who “all need to come together” and “add to” the 2006 U.N. resolution that North Korea had just disregarded, the one that demanded a halt to future missile-related activity, including launches. The Security Council met. It could not even bring itself to say North Korea’s launch had violated the resolution against launches.

The column by Will must be read in its entirety as the lone excerpt provided here doe not do it justice. Plus it is good to refer to other sources from this blog that have, shall we say, ’street cred’ in making the case or point suggested here. With more talent like George Will in the MSM they might have a better chance for survival as well as being taken seriously.

It would be wonderful if this blog could expand this one time positive response to the President’s action on the Phillips’ rescue to his entire agenda. But there is currently no evidence the remainder of his plans will be an exercise in doing the right thing.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Russia and Iraq have agreed to work toward restoring contracts established before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko said the understanding was reached during Friday’s talks in Moscow between prime ministers of the two countries.

Russian energy firms such as Lukoil signed agreements with the government of Saddam Hussein. But Saddam later canceled Lukoil’s deal to develop Iraq’s West Qurna oil field, and other contracts were frozen after the 2003 U.S. invasion.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his Russian counterpart discussed improving cooperation on the oil and gas industries and other subjects.

Russian state media, Itar-Tass, quoted Mr. Maliki as saying that Russian companies will play an important role in Iraq’s reconstruction.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin told reporters that his country and Iraq will likely resume cooperation in the area of military technology.

Mr. Maliki met later Friday with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev during his first official visit to Russia.

Iraq’s foreign minister signed an agreement last year to repay about $900 million in Soviet-era debt over 17 years. Russia agreed to forgive nearly $13 billion as part of the deal.

from MoreWhat.com:

Does anyone remember that Russia, France and Germany were among the loudest opposition to military force against Saddam Hussein at the UN before the war? One theory was the trio worried about lost revenue for contracts they had with Iraq at the time. Coming full circle it would appear.

Stanford Matthews

If the reports below are any indication of what can be expected from the G20 summit in London this week anyone skeptical of good news resulting will not be disappointed. It is likely the optimistic expectations suggested by President Obama of the US and Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain will not come to fruition.

Apparently those in charge of releasing a collective statement for leaders in attendance are having difficulty deciding what to say. After embarrassing leaks and reports of numerous revisions this may demonstrate the feeble performance yet to appear from the world’s, ah hem, leaders.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Times understands that the money will come in three separate packages.

The first are new lines of credt worth more than $100 billion to encourage countries to trade more.

The second is a possible tripling to $750 billion in the resources held by the International Monetary Fund to rescue struggling economies. The extra money will come from Japan, the EU, China and others.

The third is a one-off allocation of “special drawing rights” that enable countries to swap their own currencies for IMF backed resources.The effect is to give those countries more confidence to deplete their reserves and expand.

The report above is from the Times and the one below from the Telegraph (UK)

A version that surfaced in Germany last week appeared to show that leaders are still not agreeing on what to say about “fiscal stimulus” measures to boost economic activity by borrowing.

British officials have insisted that that the German leak was out of date and failed to reflect the intense negotiations carried out by “sherpas” and other officials ahead of the actual summit.

In fact, the text being circulated in London today commits leaders only to make “the scale of sustained effort necessary to restore growth” and contains no detail about the size and type of stimulus countries should undertake.

For a little entertainment you may wish to follow the link from the excerpt below.

The G20 protests

Wagging the dog

Apr 2nd 2009
From Economist.com
On the barricades and behind the cameras in London

OUR day of covering the protests starts with a failure: the Whitechapel Anarchist Group, whom we had emailed about interviewing, fail to answer their phone (too busy preparing to spread mayhem if other press reports are to be believed, though their blog huffily decries these accounts). At 7am, the City is quiet. Work traffic is light for a weekday, and my camera-wielding colleague and I are keen to get shots of the City prepared for protests, so set off looking for banks and offices that have shut for the day. HBOS and Halifax both sport locked doors, but security guards prevent us from filming. Frustrated, we head toward London Bridge where one of the marches is due to start.

Seriously: “Send in the Clowns” on Queenzbop playlist (Michelle Malkin)

The Day of Infamy

The attack on Pearl Harbor was the culmination of a decade of deteriorating relations between Japan and the United States over the status of China and the security of Southeast Asia. The breakdown began in 1931 when Japanese army extremists, in defiance of government policy, invaded and overran the northern-most Chinese province of Manchuria. Japan ignored American protests, and in the summer of 1937 launched a full-scale attack on the rest of China. Although alarmed by this action, neither the United States nor any other nation with interests in the Far East was willing to use military force to halt Japanese expansion.

Over the next three years, war broke out in Europe and Japan joined Nazi Germany in the Axis Alliance. The United States applied both diplomatic and economic pressures to try to resolve the Sino-Japanese conflict. The Japanese government viewed these measures, especially an embargo on oil, as threats to their nation’s security. By the summer of 1941, both countries had taken positions from which they could not retreat without a serious loss of national prestige. Although both governments continued to negotiate their differences, Japan had already decided on war.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was part of a grand strategy of conquest in the Western Pacific. The objective was to immobilize the Pacific Fleet so that the United States could not interfere with these invasion plans. The principal architect of the attack was Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Combined Fleet. Though personally opposed to war with America, Admiral Yamamoto knew that Japan’s only hope of success in such a war was to achieve quick and decisive victory. America’s superior economic and industrial might would tip the scales in her favor during a prolonged conflict.

Is there anything good to come of the current and so-called global economic crisis? Below is another report suggesting there might be. Although situations like the current international turmoil invite participants and observers to discard any uncomfortable or distasteful epiphany that results during times like these it is incumbent on the rest of us to keep them alive.

The epiphany suggested above is the revelations surfacing that the rest of the world is to one degree or another dependent on the bad old USA for their economic survival. Certainly the reverse is also true and in a perfect world everyone would cooperate with everyone else. But how often is America criticized by nearly everyone else on the planet? Why is it so often suggested that all the bad in world emanates from the US? This whole global mess dominating the conversation of late may in fact shed some light on how the world really works and what the US component contributes.

Sabre rattling and war mongering are not the least of the complaints expressed and directed toward the US. No one seemed to mind when the US led forces to expel Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Army from Kuwait. There was a coalition of forces but we all know who carried the largest burden in human and financial risk. No one on the right side of WWII seemed to mind the US supporting Britain in the early years or landing at Normandy or liberating France or anything else right up to the surrender of Germany and Japan. Oh ya, there was the little matter of a couple of bombs and two cities in Japan. That may be criticized now but you can be certain few were raising objections as the war ended.

And how about after WWII, who spent immense quantities of money rebuilding what the war destroyed? After the spirit of cooperation between Russia and the US faded at the end of WWII, who stood as the only nation ready, willing and able to confront the only other true superpower? To this day, all the criticism about the US and military and national security measures employed avoids the very real likelihood that American strength and intervention is quite probably the reason the planet still spins and we are all here to complain about this year’s set of problems and who is responsible for them.

There is little discussion attending to the obvious fact that the reason this crisis is global is due to the fact that all the other countries experiencing financial difficulties participated in how we got here just as much as the US. A fine example in the last few months was China scaling back on purchasing US debt especially that which was or is backed by real estate assets. Can anyone say subprime? Everyone hopped on the gravy train.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is again referenced in the report below as she was in the one here yesterday from the same source, VOA. You can add BASF, a VP from the EU and others to the list. Oh no, on the one hand recipients of orders from US companies as well as international business partnerships will suffer if the US auto industry cannot be turned around and on the other hand propping them up is viewed with disdain as unfair competition. These days on this planet the US simply cannot win. No can please all the people all the time but a little honesty from those who benefit from American resources would be appreciated. If for no other reason than it would be a truthful evaluation.

Sure, the United States makes mistakes and Americans do not always do the right thing. Show me a country and people who do. But for all the good the US has done for others in the rest of the world a little balance between compliment and complaint would make the statements more credible. But then around the world just like in the US all politics is local and much of what is said may be intended for a select audience which resides elsewhere, namely the sources own constituency.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Guenter Verheugen, EU VP of Enterprise and Industry

Sluggish sales and disappearing profits for the U.S. auto industry are being blamed for growing problems around the world.

The world’s largest chemical company, BASF, says Wednesday it is suspending production at 80 plants, affecting about 20,000 workers.

BASF officials say the company is preparing for “tough times” after the auto industry canceled orders on short notice. The German-based chemical giant makes a variety of products used in automobiles, including chemicals used in exterior paint, emissions control devices known as catalytic converters and plastics used in engine components.

BASF also says orders from the construction and textile industries have decreased dramatically.

Meanwhile, the European Union’s Industry commissioner is blaming the troubles of European automakers on the ailing U.S. auto industry.

Guenter Verheugen says the EU should take “extraordinary measures” to prevent German carmaker Opel from collapsing. Verheugen warns if Opel - a division of U.S.-based General Motors - fails, it would hurt the entire European auto industry.

Also Wednesday, Japan’s largest carmaker said it would shutter production at its U.S. and Canadian plants for two extra days in December. Toyota also said it would lay off about 250 temporary workers.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Tuesday European officials would closely monitor the type of help the U.S. offers its auto industry, saying she did not want European companies to be at a competitive disadvantage.

Verheugen says any aid to European automakers would be targeted, and not part of a larger, industry-wide bailout.

We are all “bank holding companies” now   (Michelle Malkin)

The report below suggests use of the word ‘global’ when referring to current economic troubles around the world not only describes the geographic nature of the problem but geopolitical as well. German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s concern of money going to US automakers from US taxpayers putting German automakers at risk provides a substantially humorous face on this reverse order of trade subsidy worries. How many foreign countries place barriers to US goods all the while accepting US corporate outsourcing to spur growth in their own economies?

The early promise of ‘a new direction’ in France with the election of Nicolas Sarkozy may be giving way to the honeymoon is long over and the French are scurrying back to their old ways of sending up flares of impending doom and expecting external concessions. This blog’s suggestion that the best thing about Sarkozy leading France was the opportunity for more photo ops of Carla Bruni may end up being less comedy relief and more political reality.

Russia seems to be the only country in this report which relies greatly on the other part of the auto industry equation, energy. The recent dive in the price of oil from its July record highs leaves the nation with the split personality between cold war demon and new world democracy with a severe reversal of fortune in petro dollars.

The only thing missing from all this international intercourse is the predictable hope for world peace and global tranquility. The only common ground here is that all concerned are on equal footing when it comes to playing the game, ‘blank’ on your neighbor. But it is reassuring that good and evil in international politics is equally balanced among the nations described in the report. And that is only because the likes of Iran and similar nations are not noticeably involved. Maybe they are a little less noisy with the fall of oil prices too.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

European officials are taking a close look at how the United States is helping its ailing auto industry.

President George W. Bush welcomes Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany to the Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy Saturday, Nov. 15, 2008, at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C. White House photo by Chris Greenberg

German Chancellor Angela Merkel says she wants to make sure aid to the U.S. auto industry will not put Europe’s own auto companies at a competitive disadvantage.

Merkel’s comments came at a news conference Tuesday in the northern Italian city of Trieste with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Carmakers in both the U.S. and Europe have been asking for government help, with French automaker Peugeot, Europe’s second largest car company, warning the global auto industry is in danger of a collapse.

Meanwhile, France wants to see a stronger international response to the global financial crisis.

In a statement released today, French President Nicolas Sarkozy says France will host a summit in January because world leaders must show they can offer “concrete solutions.”

At a meeting of industrial and developing countries last week in Washington, leaders only managed to agree on a set of principles to prevent the global economy from getting worse.

The Paris summit will be co-hosted by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and will include world leaders as well as Nobel prize-winning economists.

Reuters news agency reports International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn says the list of countries asking for help is growing every day. And Russian President Dmitri Medvedev says his government may need to spend another $180 billion to stabilize the Russian economy.

Russia has already spent almost $200 billion on a series of measures to counter the economic meltdown. The World Bank today cut its growth forecast for the Russian economy in 2008 and 2009.

India is also worried about the effect of the global financial crisis on its economic growth. Finance Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram said Tuesday the government should cut interest rates. He also called on businesses to cut prices and accept lower profit margins to help stimulate the Indian economy.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies says the financial crisis is having an impact on donations from wealthy nations.

And migrant workers from the Philippines tell VOA the financial crisis is having an impact on how much money they are able to send to their families back home.

In 2007, Filipino migrant workers sent more than $14 billion to the Philippines, equal to 13 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP.

GOP bailout stooge to Cavuto: “It’s not your money” (Michelle Malkin) 

There will be plenty of support provided President-elect Barack Obama from liberals and anyone else who voted for him. To keep the discussion honest some of us will have to present the less positive aspects of this new development. Questions raised during the campaign and not answered by the Obama/Biden team are again surfacing in responses from around the world on the US election results. This post starts with European leaders weighing in with their reaction to the new President.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown began with a comment that was relatively benign. He said he looked forward to working with the new President. A statement one might expect if the source was trying to remain somewhat neutral. The part that raises questions similar to those from the campaign would be his conclusion that Obama is ‘a true friend of Britain’ and that he has shared values and policies with Britain for solving current economic issues. What information did Gordon Brown have access to that the rest of us have been denied? Or more precisely how did Mr Brown come up with that analysis? No one else seems to know what he will do for sure when this whole thing gets under way.

Sarkozy of France is buying into the Obama and DNC hope mantra. He says this election raises hope for just about everyone on the planet. This entire hope and change slogan seems to be long on optimism and short on details. Are people so simplistic to believe that just putting someone else besides George Bush in the White House will cause some sort of global enlightenment? Will all the barriers between people of the world be suddenly vanquished? No one yet has provided a coherent agenda that may be forthcoming from the Obama/Biden team. Why all the high praise and complimentary expressions for a huge unknown?

The German Chancellor and EU foreign policy chief expressed closer cooperation and an emphasis on change, respectively, as their appraisal of President-elect Obama. Aside from possibly echoing the hope and change mantra, a more realistic assessment of Merkel’s statement may be the reason many foreign powers are happy about Obama being elected. Appeasement and caving to the demands of foreign governments may be the hope from abroad regarding the new US Presidential Administration.

The statements from foreign leaders sound as uninformed as those from people on the street where one person said they are excited that Obama might bring some changes. This is a sentiment that was repeated regularly during the campaign and now again afterwards. It is alarming that people can base such an important decision on such flimsy rhetoric. The reliance on the idea of hope and change as a reason to vote for Obama and Biden is absolutely stunning. Perhaps privately those being quoted from around the world are laughing hysterically at the foolish Americans who chose a President on a vague idea and promise. One which Barack Obama quickly extinguished in his acceptance speech when he said things may not get done in one year or his entire first term. Rather than help the middle class he expressed everyone’s need to sacrifice.

That was President-elect’s first speech, the acceptance speech. You may wish to read or hear it again. It is available around the internet in text and mp3 form. The first words he uttered after the deal was done. After the campaign was over and the votes were in and tallied for the most part Mr Obama made a speech. It could very well be that all bets are off based on his comment that nothing may get accomplished in his first term.

As stated at the top of this post someone has to bring up the less than positive as the MSM and staunch Obama/Biden supporters will dominate the discussion. You may or may not wish to consider the possibility you were just sold something equating to the well known swamp land in Florida or the Brooklyn bridge or just the simple bill of goods the value of which are suspect.

You may not but foreign leaders around the world may get what they want from President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com