Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Absolutely unbelievable! Apparently the audacity of the O is contagious. Or maybe this is a product of his recent World Apology Tour. The UN has raised a question on whether the US is killing people indiscriminately with the use of UAVs. Perhaps they should have first asked this question to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah or any other terrorist group. For that is what terrorists do. Absolutely unbelievable! If anyone requires further explanation of this issue there is no point continuing a discussion. The world is truly losing its collective mind. This is beyond audacity. That the UN is the source is the only thing that is not a surprise.

What the hell do they think 9/11 was if not indiscriminate killing? In more than eight years has the UN accused al-Qaeda of violating international law for that? Nearly 3000 civilians killed in the attack on the WTC and the UN wants to know about drones? Wow! And this same organization is involved with determining whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons. How vulnerable do you feel right now?

It will take some time to nominate another story that even comes close to comparing to this one on the absurd meter.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings says the use of armed unmanned aircraft by the United States to hunt down terrorists could be a violation of international law. Philip Alston said Tuesday that Washington must explain how it is sure the United States is not killing people indiscriminately with these aircraft.

U.S. officials have never confirmed the use of Predator drones, but it is widely reported that the Central Intelligence Agency has used them to kill suspected terrorist leaders operating in Pakistan’s largely ungoverned tribal areas along its border with Afghanistan.

U.N. Special Rapporteur Philip Alston questioned the legality of their use under international law. “My concern is that these drones, these Predators, are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The onus is really on the government of the United States to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions are not, in fact, being carried out through the use of these weapons,” he said.

U.S. officials never acknowledge these strikes, saying they do not discuss operational or intelligence matters.

The Special Rapporteur, who is an independent expert appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, said the U.S. response has been “untenable” and that Washington needs to be more willing to discuss aspects of its drone program. “Otherwise you have the really problematic bottom line, which is that the Central Intelligence Agency is running a program that is killing significant numbers of people and there is absolutely no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws,” he said.

Alston said the United States should explain who is running the program and what precautions are being taken to ensure that these weapons are used within the framework of international law. He added that there must also be accountability and review mechanisms in place regarding their use.

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

Could someone explain how this solves anything?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:
Pressure Mounts on Iran Uranium Enrichment Program (Right Truth) 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has drafted an agreement to supply enriched uranium to Iran following three days of negotiations at its headquarters in Vienna. If all parties agree to it, the deal could mark a breakthrough after a years-long international standoff over Iran’s nuclear program.

The draft agreement was announced to reporters by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who has given all parties involved until Friday to approve it.

“I have circulated a draft agreement that reflects, in my judgment, a balanced approach on how to move forward,” he said. “The deadline for the parties to give, I hope, affirmative action is Friday, two days from now. And if we do get affirmative action, then I hope that we will have an agreement that we can send to the (IAEA) board of governors.”

ElBaradei said France was included in the draft agreement. Talks this week gathering Russia, the United States, France, Iran and the IAEA, stalled on Tuesday over Iran’s reluctance to have France participate in any deal on enriching its uranium. ElBaradei however described the discussions as constructive and forward-looking.

The IAEA chief did not elaborate on the draft deal, but news agencies report that it is essentially similar to an agreement reached in Geneva earlier this month. That deal would commit Iran to shipping about 75 percent of its lightly enriched stockpile of uranium to Russia for further enrichment.

The material would then be shipped to France to be converted into metal rods before being delivered back to Tehran. The rods would be used to power a research reactor in the Iranian capital making medical isotopes.

More broadly, if all parties agree to the deal, it would defuse international concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. Iran says the program is for peaceful purposes , but western nations fear Tehran is trying to build a nuclear bomb.

Nobel Peace Prize winning President Obama is said to be struggling over what to do in Afghanistan. Does the rookie believe ignoring intel, military and state warnings is the answer? What does this say about his campaign rhetoric to get elected and his desire to maintain favor from the far left antiwar liberal standard?

Officials: Obama advisers are downplaying Afghan dangers

By JONATHAN S. LANDAY, JOHN WALCOTT AND NANCY A. YOUSSEF
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — As the Obama administration reconsiders its Afghanistan policy, White House officials are minimizing warnings from the intelligence community, the military and the State Department about the risks of adopting a limited strategy focused on al-Qaida, U.S. intelligence, diplomatic and military officials told McClatchy Newspapers.

His worry about public opinion ,aka far left support, and resistance to his own advisors is of such concern the report cited here mentions the problem twice in the first seven paragraphs.

However, the officials said, in their effort to muster domestic support for a more limited counterterrorism strategy that would concentrate on disrupting and dismantling al-Qaida, White House officials are neglecting warnings from their own experts about the dangers of a more modest approach.

Given the antiwar sentiment on the left that both candidate Obama and Clinton pandered to in 2008 their ability to do the right thing and at the same time protect their political futures are at odds with each other. With their own ‘experts’ and others suggesting the simmering conflicts are providing renewed strength for al-Qaeda now is not the time for indecision. Biden’s warning of a test for Obama may be just around the corner contrary to the original forecast.

Instead of national security and defense the liberal new direction is focused on an ill-conceived domestic policy Those issues can and should wait based on the pathetic proposals offered to date. The other matters are of immediate concern and need to be handled effectively. And yes, elections have consequences.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Ah, a reminder of another one of President Obama’s dangerous image over substance agenda items. Just like elections have consequences so do campaign promises. Especially those promises that were only designed to win an election. Gee, admit you were wrong and abandon a misguided campaign promise or further endanger your country for fear of ending your political career. For those genuinely engaged to serve their country this would not be a difficult decision. For those with other priorities it is a risk worth taking.

Mr President, do the right thing. Closing Gitmo is a bad idea.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has acknowledged that it will be difficult to meet the January 22, 2010 deadline to close the U.S. detention center for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

But Holder told reporters Tuesday that officials will try to meet that goal, saying the prison will eventually be closed.

Holder made his comment days after the House of Representatives voted to block detainees at Guantanamo from being transferred to U.S. soil. The measure last Thursday passed by a vote of 258 to 163, drawing support from both Democrats and Republicans.

President Barack Obama has said he wants to close Guantanamo by next January. He says closing the facility is crucial to restoring America’s image in the world and to creating a more effective anti-terror approach.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that closing the facility has proven more complicated than anticipated. Many members of the U.S. Congress also have voiced concerns about bringing terrorism suspects to the United States.

A task force has cleared 75 of the remaining 223 Guantanamo prisoners for release as part of an effort to close the facility. The review team has been examining each prisoner’s case to determine who will be held for trial and who can be sent home or resettled in other countries.

Recently the US Senate has suggested we are vulnerable to a biological terror attack. They have even brought forth measures to counter that threat. The problem is the concern has been around for years. We are fast approaching a decade since the attacks of 9/11. And the US Senate took this long to get around to considering a biological attack? The list of other potential terror threats is quite long. And there is an overriding reason to keep our collective eye on the ball.

More than one source suggests there are no connections between all the terror activities known to date. But some of us believe otherwise.

Of course there are.

Maybe it will prove to be the case that the three suspects at the heart of these interrupted plots - Najibullah Zazi, Hosam Maher Husein Smadi and Michael C. Finton (also known as Talib Islam) - had no connection in a tactical or operational sense.

Still, it is absurd, and extremely dangerous, to insist that they are not connected in at least one way: What apparently animated all three of these suspects (and perhaps a number of others believed to have been involved in the New York plot who are still at large) is the seditious, supremacist theo-political-legal program authoritative Islam calls Shariah.

Shariah requires its adherents to engage in jihad - the struggle to bring about the triumph of Islam worldwide through whatever means are available. Shariah explicitly calls for the use of violent techniques designed to instill terror in those who stand in the way of a global Muslim theocracy.

The simple fact that the terrorists themselves offer evidence of this being the case by their frequent broadcasts or publications of text, video and other material should be adequate confirmation of their intent. Not heeding these warnings as real is done at risk of one’s own peril.

From state sponsors of terror to Iranian and North Korean nukes to the long history of terrorism around the world one would have to have been sleeping for the last twenty years or longer to not recognize it. So all you Rip Van Winkle’s had better catch up. That includes the US Congress and those members of the liberal appeasement crowd now comprising the majority party.

Although a favorite target of liberals is former President George W. Bush liberals have their own presidential problems. Now Bill Clinton has reentered the political discussion and if memory serves was given some sort of BS envoy job by Obama. Not less BS than the job given to the former First Lady HRC. Both of the Clinton’s have meaningless posts in the Obama Administration but apparently feel the need to ‘back’ the Messiah anyhow. And there’s Jimmy Carter who did no favors for the current Admin.

Yet the libs continue their worn out GOP bashing amid all the clamor their impotent party and fringe supporters create. Fringe components like nutroots, MoveOn and the Soros gang bashed Cheney, Rumsfeld, Patraeus and US troops with their antiwar sentiment leading up to the 2008 election. Obama began with campaign rhetoric convincing supporters the US would immediately withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and punish everyone in the Bush Administration.

The fringe and not so fringe left want government everything from bailouts to stimulus to free healthcare as well as shamnesty for illegals, same sex marriage, abortion paid by tax dollars and more expense to the American public through AGW, cap and tax and a crushing debt exacerbated by President Obama and tax cheat Tim Geithner.

Congress is still muddled in Obamacare and cannot turn this sow’s ear into a silk purse. Okay, there’s not enough lipstick on the planet to accommodate this pig. Dems don’t appear to have the strength to finish Iraq or Afghanistan as required, fail to handle problems like Iran and North Korea properly and hand the Russians a gift by abandoning allies in Europe with an another appeasement missile defense plan.

As indicated by all the tax cheat nominations and withdrawals, plus the ACORN connection and shady resumes of most of the Messiah’s chosen few Michelle Malkin is not the least off the mark emphasizing the Culture of Corruption and placing it squarely on the liberal majority in Washington. The GOP had their fall from grace and lost the majority in the last two elections. It is now the Dems turn and they have wasted no time promoting a ‘throw the bums out’ option for voters in 2010.

Elections have consequences. Democrats wanted to be the majority and got their chance. Their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is once again being confirmed. It is way past time to point fingers and blame those who were previously the majority.

To the Democratic Party:

You wanted the job, you got it. Now govern properly and abandon your insane agenda or pay the price next year.

Complete the jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Abandon your present course on healthcare. Reduce spending and increase tax cuts. Stop the bailouts and porkulus madness. Forget cap and tax. Give up shamnesty and improve national security and defense. Follow the rule of law and the founding documents. Correct the other items mentioned above.

Once you get that completed come back here for the next task list.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Is that the best Iran’s so-called supreme leader can do? Blame his country’s problems on media reports. That same media has recently reported Iran has agreed to a new set of rules for cooperation with the IAEA. You can call the IAEA independent all you want to but it’s relationship and sanction by the United Nations is all too clear. The IAEA’s ‘atoms for peace’ slogan is more than any rational human being can bear. The history of the UN and the IAEA fit well into Iran’s plans to play games with the all too willing international community until Iran detonates their first nuke.

Iran’s Supreme Leader says Western News Media Attempting to “Poison” Iran
Iran’s supreme leader says Western media are to blame for his country’s recent political unrest. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is pointing his finger at Western news media for inciting political friction in Iran.

In May of this year not the ‘Western News Media’ but ‘Iran’s state media’ got all puffed up about Iran’s missile tests complete with cheering crowds of those characterized as supporters of Ahmadinejad.

Iran Claims to Have Test-Fired Mid-Range Missile
Iran’s state media says the country has successfully test launched a mid-range surface-to-surface missile that can reach Israel, southeastern Europe and U.S. bases in the Middle East. Iranian government TV showed what it said was the test-firing of the Sejil-2, which it says has a range of 2,000 kilometers. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad also commented on the test-firing of the two-stage missile during a campaign speech in the northern town of Semnan. The crowd of several thousand Ahmedinejad supporters cheered as the president described the launch.

During the same month Ahmadinejad held a news conference rejecting talks about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Iran: No More Nuclear Talks With World Powers
Mr. Ahmadinejad told a news conference in Tehran Monday Iran will only agree to discussions with major powers about cooperating in managing global problems. He said Iran will not participate in talks about nuclear issues outside the framework of the U.N. nuclear agency.

This of course is combined with the year’s Iranian politics which generated this headline, ‘Ahmadinejad Win Sparks Protests in Tehran‘ in which an address by Ahmadinejad made the following claim, ‘In an address, Mr. Ahmadinejad declared the vote a great victory and called it a “completely free election.”

Add his statements which blame the US and Israel for all the world’s problems, his call for the destruction of Israel and recently renewed claim the holocaust never happened and it becomes clear any ‘poisoning of Iran’ is self-induced contrary to the stated opinion of Khamenei. Most of what comes out of Iran, minus the loyal opposition to the current regime, demonstrates a rogue state’s intention to develop a nuclear arsenal and put the world at risk. All the delays are nothing more than a smoke screen to buy time to complete their sinister strategy.

AP NewsBreak: Nuke agency says Iran can make bomb
VIENNA — Experts at the world’s top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press.

IAEA denies report it is sure Iran seeking atom bomb
The International Atomic Energy Agency reaffirmed IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei’s Sept. 9 comment that allegations the agency was sitting on evidence of Iranian bomb work were “politically motivated and baseless”.

Either way, the IAEA does not inspire confidence. You need a scorecard to keep up with all the reports on yes they do or no they don’t in terms of Iran’s status of joining the nuclear club. Argue the topic to your heart’s delight but one conclusion remains clear. The world does not need any more members to the nuke club. Pandora’s Box was opened long ago in the heat of a world war. There’s no putting the lid back on. Outside of ending the war with Japan in the last century none of the current known members of the nuke club have become reckless with the option. Who believes that restraint would be practices by any new members?

And no one has forgotten about North Korea or the Jihad crowd’s similar ambitions. World leaders are as impotent in this regard as with Iran.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

This blogger regularly albeit infrequently promotes reading George F Will’s columns. That remains. Similar to a previous misunderstood column criticizing the way Americans present themselves Mr Will may or is again coming under fire to some degree. It is unpopular in conservative circles to suggest abandoning military combat operations before victory is secured. But George F Will does make a point, unpopular or not. And he may end up being right but not necessarily for the reasons given below.

Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.

So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck’s decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen’s, is squandered.

For several reasons this blog disagrees with the last two sentences presented above. You can of course make your own evaluation. Another opinion on this topic is at the WSJ.

The questions and concerns being raised are legitimate. Clearly, the mission has not been going well. Problems with our basic strategy, especially on the economic and development side, still need immediate attention. Moreover, our Afghan friends have a crucial role to play in both security and development, and if they fail to do so the overall warfighting and state-building effort will not succeed.

Both with Mr Will and the WSJ piece from a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (O’Hanlon), the downside is discussed. The WSJ piece includes the upside.

These problems need to be corrected soon. Even then, it will take at least 12-18 months to see results. Our chief challenge in Afghanistan is building state institutions and that is an inherently slow process. But as we debate new changes to our strategy this fall, we would do well to remember all that is working in our favor in this crucial effort.

Analyzing armed conflict while it is occurring and from an historical perspective is an unending endeavor. The only decisive outcome is whether those who risk making the ultimate sacrifice were at least allowed every conceivable opportunity for victory. After all, for the rest of us this analysis endeavor is merely Monday quarterbacking.

Perhaps the only statement on war with which we can all agree includes some expression of its futility. But this is what humans do when adequately provoked or someone decides all other options have evaporated. Until we morph into the perfect beings we sometimes think we are this practice will not become obsolete.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

An earlier post on this blog, ‘IAEA Paper Tiger vs Iranian Nukes‘, expresses a viewpoint on the do-nothings regarding Iran’s nuclear threat. Oh how surprising that today a report referenced below confirms suspicions that the IAEA is one of those do-nothings.

VIENNA — The global threat posed by Iran’s suspect nuclear program is “hyped” because there’s no hard proof that Tehran has an ongoing effort to build an atomic weapon, the head of the U.N. nuclear agency asserts in a magazine interview.

And there is no ‘hard proof’ why? Because the do-nothings have failed to compel Iran to come clean. So what does Elbaradei say?

ELBARADEI: We have not seen concrete evidence that Tehran has an ongoing nuclear weapons program. But somehow, many people are talking about how Iran’s nuclear program is the greatest threat to the world. In many ways, I think the threat has been hyped. Yes, there’s concern about Iran’s future intentions and Iran needs to be more transparent with the IAEA and international community. We still have outstanding questions that are relevant to the nature of Tehran’s program, and we still need to verify that there aren’t undeclared activities taking place inside of the country. But the idea that we’ll wake up tomorrow and Iran will have a nuclear weapon is an idea that isn’t supported by the facts as we have seen them so far. It’s urgent, however, to initiate a dialogue between Washington and Tehran to build trust, normalize relations, and allay concerns as proposed by President Obama. To me, that’s the only way forward.

Not ‘we haven’t seen concrete evidence’ because you have not done your job to discover the evidence. Of course you have ‘outstanding’ questions. All the questions are outstanding. Here’s an outstanding question for you. How do you draw conclusions without the evidence you are supposed to collect. What facts have you seen so far? It is hard to see facts when you do not look. No one suggests your tomorrow scenario. Continuous foot dragging will allow Iran to develop and deploy and/or use nuclear weapons. Of course, hard to imagine the UN would defer action to the US. Now they expect an equal do-nothing to uncover evidence of Iran’s nuclear weapons program through appeasement.

Why don’t we send Bill Clinton to Iran as happened with North Korea. There still must be Americans being held there. Go save someone Bill and broker another back room deal with terrorists. Your administration was good at doing that. Oh, could that be what ushered in 9/11. Gives the impression Americans are slow learners.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(note: the ‘puff piece’ interview of Elbaradei at the link for the pdf file in the excerpt above is pathetic.  The kind of special interest appraisal that generates do-nothings like the UN and the IAEA.)

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

Exactly the kind of talk that supports the notion Arab countries and Muslims worldwide have an agenda for the destruction of Israel.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who is in the United States for talks, says Arab nations would recognize Israel only after a just and comprehensive Mideast peace deal is reached.

Nothing like putting the cart in front of the horse. Does Mubarak say anything with this other than they want a deal that places Israel in more jeopardy from the foes that surround them? A tiny country, Israel, surrounded by a massive geography populated by Muslims has been a target of these neighbors since 1948 when the current chapter in the saga began.

As early as 2010 or 11 things may change in Egypt removing them from the occasional moderate position they express. That is not how all of this sounds.

The talks in Washington are centered on the Middle East peace process and the Arab world’s relationship with Iran under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, all issues Mr. Mubarak has taken an active interest in.

But underneath lies the question of what comes next for Egypt, or more specifically, who. In power since 1981, Mr. Mubarak has given little indication of what the transition might look like. He has no vice president. He has not said if he will run for re-election in 2011, and many wonder if that would even be advisable, as he would be nearly 90 at the end of that term.

It is an issue that concerns not just Egyptians. Professor Said Sadek is a political scientist at the American University in Cairo, who worries any instability or political vacuum could be exploited by hardline groups and politicians across the region that oppose U.S. influence in the region.

“How do you guarantee the transition of power in Egypt, so that we don’t have an unpredictable situation in Egypt that would get you the Muslim Brotherhood here in alliance with Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Beirut and [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad in Tehran - voila, the American strategic policy in the area would collapse,” said Sadek.

As with any conflict all sides have made mistakes. But that certainly does not justify calling for the destruction of Israel. While calling for the death of infidels, the destruction of Israel and at the same time claiming they are mistreated, Muslims need a reality check.

Stop the terrorism and calls for more of it and someone might begin to take you seriously. Constant violence, calling for it and promoting it does not suggest a religion of peace.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Double-dip recession?

As interest rates rise, as they must, and international commodity and other prices rise as the global economy recovers, real, after-tax, inflation and tax-adjusted disposable incomes will continue to fall. This means real consumption can rise temporarily but will likely fall again, giving the United States a double-dip recession.

Above is the ordinary ’speak’ on the topic of economics and the current situation. Read the rest of the story by following the link. It is not only informative but written in a manner that makes reading bad news entertaining.

It is quite possible that the US has not been at risk to this degree since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. At least back then it seems the fate of the world was in large part dependent on how well the former USSR and the US managed the ‘nuclear threat’ of war. Now it is possible nearly everyone has a nuke. Add to that the common ingredient for war, economic turmoil, and the planet is once again ripe for major conflict.

It would behoove US leaders and ordinary citizens to attend to matters of economics with a conservative approach to resolve financial distress at every level. This would not only improve the bottom lines of everyone involved but strengthen our nation and its defense against external threats. Obamacare and the remainder of the liberal agenda are contrary to those ends.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(President Barack Obama meets with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during their bilateral meeting at Winfield House in London, Wednesday, April 1, 2009. White House Photo/Pete Souza)

At two recent congressional hearings, U.S. diplomats, defense and military officials outlined how the Obama administration intends to go about “resetting” the U.S. relationship with Russia. Lawmakers on the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs, and Armed Services committees asked some tough questions about key aspects of the U.S-Russian relationship.

If you are not concerned about President Obama and discussions with President Medvedev of Russia you should be. White the ‘beer summit’ of Obama and Biden is surely not the ‘test’ VPOTUS forecasted in months past, negotiations between the Eagle and the Bear may be.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com