US Interventionism In-Action: Fighting Both With And Against Iran

Foreign Policy, Iran

Foreign policy confusion is in part a consequence of intervening everywhere. The US can’t get its story straight. NBC’s Richard Engel, an excellent foreign policy correspondent of the Arwa Damon caliber, was on the nose when he recently said the following:

the Obama Administration’s foreign policy toward Iran … seems “convoluted” and “incoherent” at best, given the fact that the U.S. seems to be contradicting itself in its support and opposition to Iran in a number of countries.

Engel explained how the U.S. is fighting both with and against Iran in Syria, which he said is “an incredibly convoluted dynamic.” He said that while the U.S. is negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program, it is supporting the fight against Iran in Yemen, where Iran-backed Houthi rebels recently forced out that country’s president and Saudi Arabia launched air strikes against them in retaliation.

“We’re fighting both with and against Iran in Syria, and fighting with Iran in Iraq,” Engel said. “There are many people who I’ve spoken to — many in the military, many policy analysts — who say that what we’re seeing here is an incoherent policy regarding not just Iran, but regarding the Middle East in general.”

Engel also said many in the military were “taken by surprise” when Saudi Arabia started bombing Yemen because they did not “consult extensively” with the U.S. military.

“Senior officials who would have been expected to know that there was going to be an operation in Yemen, they didn’t,” Engel added. “They were finding out about it almost in real time.”

About one thing Engel is wrong: US foreign policy is not newly “incoherent” and “convoluted” since Barack Obama. Did the CIA not back a coup in 1953 against Mohammad Mosaddegh, the Prime Minister of Iran, even though he was democratically elected? Did we not back the Mujaheddin against Russia in Afghanistan, before the former morphed into the Taliban and al-Qaida? Did George Bush’s puppet government in Iraq not turn to its coreligionists in Iran soon after it was ensconced? Are our people and diplomats not under frequent attack (such as in South Korea, Okinawa, on and on), due to blowback over the perception that the US bestrides the world like an arrogant colossus?

MORE Engel.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Read Mercer Weekly On Leading Afrikaner-Rights Site

IMMIGRATION, Left-Liberalism, South-Africa, The State

“The ‘We Need To Have A Conversation’ Malarkey” is the current column, now on Dan Roodt’s PRAAG. An excerpt:

You know just how scholarly a policy paper is when it is studded with a clichéd expression like “we need to have a conversation about …” The pop-phrase is familiar from these farcical usages:

“We need to have a conversation about race”—when, in reality, we do nothing but subject ourselves to a one-way browbeating about imagined slights committed against the pigmentally burdened.

“We need to have a conversation about immigration”—when such a “conversation” is strictly confined to a lecture on how to adapt to the program of Third World mass immigration. This particular “conversation” involves learning to live with a lower quality of life, poorer education, environmental degradation; less safety and security, more taxation and alienation.

In this mold is a policy paper by Jennifer Bradley, formerly of the liberal Brookings Institute. Bradley had a stroke of luck. Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report found fit to link her essay on his eponymous news website site. Titled “The Changing Face of the Heartland: Preparing America’s Diverse Workforce for Tomorrow,” Bradley’s Brookings Essay would have been more honestly titled “Get-With the Program, Middle American. Demography Is Destiny.” …

… The complete column is “The ‘We Need To Have A Conversation’ Malarkey.” Read the rest on PRAAG.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Will We Soon Be Screening For Recent Converts To The Religion Of Peace?

Homeland Security, Islam, Jihad, Terrorism

Before it was deleted, Pamela Geller captured this screen picture of a Facebook Fan page for alleged mass murderer Andreas Lubitz, co-pilot of the doomed Germanwings Flight 9525.

Swirling on the internet are unverified rumors—that’s all they are—that Lubitz may have been a recent convert to Islam. RT hints at an impending revelation:

23:45 GMT: Police investigating co-pilot Andreas Lubitz’s involvement in the Germanwings plane crash have made a “significant discovery” at his residence, the Mirror reported. Officers did not specify what the discovery was, but confirmed it was not a suicide note.

If Lubitz was a convert to Islam, you do realize what that means, don’t you? Conversion to Islam is a risk factor. Screening for recent converts to the religion of peace, Islam, will become imperative before flights, or else people will—and should—stop flying. It matters not that the probability of a convert bringing down a plane is miniscule. Reassuring statistics mean nothing if you’re the odd one out.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Murder In The Skies

Morality, Pseudoscience, Psychiatry

Whenever someone commits an evil act, it is inferred, reasoning backwards—B, therefore A is a logical fallacy; a non sequitur—that the criminal was ill, not evil. It is but a matter of time before the exculpation industry adopts their perennial position with respect to Andreas Lubitz, “the co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525, who was in the cockpit when the plane crashed into the French Alps. Investigators called it a ‘deliberate’ move, one that killed Lubitz and 149 others.” (CBS News)

His motive is still unclear, leading to questions about how the aviation industry screens pilots for issues like mental health. … According to investigators, Andreas Lubitz deliberately set the plane on a doomed descent. Data from an aviation flight-tracking service shows the altitude setting was turned down to 100 feet — its lowest possible level. That action appears to firmly rule out any possibility of an accident.

“Overt action is required to reach up, turn a knob many times to change it from 38,000 feet, to in this case, to 100 feet ,” said Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger – known for the Miracle on the Hudson. “One would never normally in flight set an altitude of 100 feet.”

If Andreas Lubitz did indeed do the deed; he is guilty of murder in the skies. Mass murder in the skies.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

‘Germanwings Pilot Was Locked Out of Cockpit Before Crash in France’

Europe, Homeland Security, Technology, Terrorism

A day after the crash of Germanwings Flight 9525, in what is proving to be a speedy and professional investigation, the New York Times has it on good authority that the Germanwings “jet with 150 people on board crashed in relatively clear skies,” and that “evidence from a cockpit voice recorder indicated one pilot left the cockpit before the plane’s descent and was unable to get back in.”

A senior military official involved in the investigation described “very smooth, very cool” conversation between the pilots during the early part of the flight from Barcelona to Düsseldorf. Then the audio indicated that one of the pilots left the cockpit and could not re-enter.

“The guy outside is knocking lightly on the door and there is no answer,” the investigator said. “And then he hits the door stronger and no answer. There is never an answer.”

He said, “You can hear he is trying to smash the door down.”

While the audio seemed to give some insight into the circumstances leading up to the Germanwings crash on Tuesday morning, it also left many questions unanswered.

“We don’t know yet the reason why one of the guys went out,” said the official, who requested anonymity because the investigation is continuing. “But what is sure is that at the very end of the flight, the other pilot is alone and does not open the door.”


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Don’t Marry Warns Fred Reed

Family, Feminism, Gender, Sex

A doff of the proverbial hat to the editor of “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lesson For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa,” the illustrious Australian writer Rob Stove, who just sent me Fred Reed’s latest. It’s marvelous (except for the porn stuff; yuk). To the upstanding Rob, “Matrimony, Holy or Otherwise: A Movable Concentration Camp” sounded over-the-top wrong. Not to me. Guilty. Averaged out, old Fred is right.

Matrimony, Holy or Otherwise:
A Movable Concentration Camp
By Fred Reed

“If you are a young man, and contemplate matrimony with the love of your life, it is well to look at marriage from the standpoint of reason rather than sentiment. Men are, after all, male, and occasionally capable of reason. The first question to ask yourself is: Why marry? What would you gain? Would your troubles disappear? Would sex be better? Would food be more savory? Would you get tax breaks, enjoy more freedom? Do stock options come with marriage?

Is there any practical advantage at all?

For you, I mean. For her, the advantages are considerable, and the drawbacks few. Your salary will allow her an upscale house, something more important to her than to you, which on the odds she will get in the divorce. Marriage locks-in child support. Since men die younger, she will get to pick your bones. For her, it is a good deal.

For you, no. Marriage has one purpose only, which is to get her legal hooks into you. Do not forget that American women, under the evanescent ivory skin, are eternally adolescent spoiled brats, feminine as a wrestler’s jockstrap and primed, as soon as life’s inevitable shocks come, to blame men for their unhappinesses. That means you.

Do not dismiss the foregoing as clever cynicism. Nobody goes into marriage expecting divorce, but it comes very frequently, and she really does get the house and the children. In divorces, men lose. Your child support will be based on what the judge thinks you should earn—this is called ‘imputed income’—so that, if you are a stock broker, you cannot decide that you would rather work on a fishing boat in the Caribbean. If the judge thinks you may be a flight risk, she can confiscate your passport. Your wife’s lawyer may advise her to accuse you of sexually molesting the children. (So help me, this happens. In a divorce, the man wants to get out, the wife to get even.) You may be denied visitation.

In the eyes of the court, the children are her property, to be done with as she chooses. She may remarry with an Air Force colonel she met in a meat bar, and be stationed in Okinawa. So much for your kids.

She can ruin you at any moment. Can and, not unlikely, will. When the moment comes, you will be astonished at how much she knows about divorce law, how vicious she can be. In marriage, you are betting your future on the flip of a loaded coin.

The sensible conclusion is that you are better off single, building a career or whatever you want in life, and dating such flowers as drift by.

Should you marry, the pleasure will be fleeting. Remember that women work on the principle of bait, switch, and fade. From fifteen to, say, twenty-five, they are dreams afoot, cute, with perfect skin and aerodynamic lines. That is what you think you are marrying. Add five or ten years, ten or twenty pounds, and the lack of any reason to continue being charming—and you are going to spend the rest of your life with it. Too many men marry the package, and only discover the content when it is too late.

Matrimony is seldom a happy state in America. Given that something like half of marriages end in divorce, you can bet that a lot of others almost do. Of the remainder, probably more are contented than happy. Resignation is not pleasant, but often the best you can hope for.

Live with her if you must, but don’t marry her. A woman cohabiting has at least some incentive to be agreeable. A married woman does not. Worth pondering is that, in a time of declining economy, feckless government, and political instability, the fewer responsibilities you attach to yourself, the better.

The very idea of marriage is problematic. In many ways, men and women are incompatible. Exceptions and degrees, yes, but on average women are more domestic, materialistic, fearful, totalitarian, and comfortable with routine. This means that to the extent you have masculine interests, you will find her to be an anchor. This doesn’t mean only that she won’t like that awful motorcycle or that noisy Corvette thingy. She won’t want to live in a small condo in the funky part of town, go to the shooting range, or scuba dive.

It is said that marriage rests on compromises, but in fact it rests on concessions, and you will make all of them. You will find your social life gravitating fast to other married couples. She won’t want you to have single female friends (nor will you want her to have single male friends: Marriage is based on mistrust.). Worse, she won’t want you to have single male friends. She will want you where she can keep an eye on you. Forget going out with the guys. …”

MORE Fred On Everything.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint