Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Foreign Policy’ Category

More on Egypt

 

The NY Times is little more than a radical leftist rag and a mouthpiece for the current regime.   However, it is worthwhile because it offers a glimpse into the thinking of the regime.

This article states that:

1.  The regime is working to force Mubarak out of Egypt.

2.  The regime wants the Moslem Brotherhood to “share” power.

It is indeed puzzling that “I AM the ONE” wants to turn the mid-east country with the largest army over to an organization that has vowed to exterminate the Israelis.  (A clue:  you can’t “share” power with a violent jihadist organization.  You kill them or they kill you.  The choice is up to you.)  Unless that is his goal.

See yesterday’s post.

From today’s NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/world/middleeast/04diplomacy.html?_r=2

…………the proposal also calls for the transitional government to invite members from a broad range of opposition groups, including the banned Muslim Brotherhood………..

Senior (US) administration officials said ………….. Mubarak in an effort to persuade the president to step down now.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

What’s up in Egypt?

Lots of words and no pictures.  But….important!

If you have been following the news at all, you must have heard about the trouble in Egypt.  The Main Stream Media Narrative is that:  A Brutal and Corrupt Regime  (supported by a fascist United States, naturally) is being overthrown by a Peace Loving and Freedom Seeking popular movement called the Moslem Brotherhood.  The President and Secretary of State have said/implied that Mubarak should step down and (the rumors are) that “He Whose Middle Name Cannot be Spoken” is negotiating with the Moslem Brotherhood.

Why anyone would think that the government of the United States can negotiate with the Moslem Brotherhood is beyond me.  Their rhetoric is that they want to impose a totalitarian Islamic state on the entire world.  They espouse the extermination of the Israelis and anyone else that opposes them, including “the Great Satan” (that’s you, Bunkie).  Perhaps “I AM the One We Have Been Waiting For” has a romantic attachment to violent revolutionary movements.  His grandfather was a part of the Mau-Mau uprising against the British and his closest advisor (Bill Ayers) was, literally, a bomb throwing terrorist whose only regret is that he didn’t “do more” (as in kill more people?).

But….the so called “Main Stream Media” and the current régime have been so wrong, so laughably, criminally wrong, so many times that a rational person would suspect that the popular narrative is…wrong.

Here is another analysis of current events in Egypt.  It appears that the current regime continues to do our country harm, perhaps irreparable harm, on the world stage.  We have become a laughing stock to our enemies and a horror to our allies.

From:  www.kforcegov.com

Egypt: Health Minister Ahmad Farid said three people died and 639 were injured in street encounters on 2 February between pro-Mubarak supporters and the demonstrators in Cairo, Thousands of pro-Mubarak protesters demonstrated in Cairo, Alexandria and other towns to show support for the president’s latest speech condemning the opposition. Police cars made their first appearance in Semoha since the protests on 28 January. In Mahatit al-Ramal district, clashes erupted between pro-Mubarak and anti-Mubarak protesters in front of Al-Qaed Ibrahim Mosque, though the army asked the pro-Mubarak demonstrators to leave the area.

Egyptian Central Bank Deputy Gov. Hisham Ramez said Egyptian banks will open 6 February after being closed for a full week, regardless of the situation. The banking system will be ready with sufficient funds to deal with all transactions .

The Egyptian Army spokesman said the people’s message has been heard and it is time for the protesters to help Egypt return to normal.  The spokesman said the army will remain vigilant in preserving the country and protecting it by all means. He said the protesters started this revolution and  thus are the only ones capable of returning the country back to normal, adding the military promises to stand beside the Egyptian people and their interests as well as the country.

Comment: Today was the day of Epiphany. In Tahrir Square, the atmosphere changed from euphoria to fear in less than 24 hours. The anti-government demonstrators were outnumbered and surrounded by pro-Mubarak supporters, trapped. They discovered that Army tolerance of their street displays also extended to the pro-Mubarak activists. The Army showed that it was strictly neutral, supporting neither side. Soldiers said they had no orders to move. This was the first epiphany.

There were four others.

The second epiphany was that the anti-government demonstrators were, in fact, not an outpouring of universal opposition to the Mubarak regime.

Many everyday people will be harmed by the end of the Mubarak administration. Mubarak extended and expanded the patronage state. The prospect of its disruption, even, would harm tens of millions of Egyptians. The Western media narrative of a nationwide uprising for increased political freedom derived from the activism of 250,000 people in Tahrir Square has proven to be flawed if not outright false, a story for entertainment news.

The youth of Cairo do not like Mubarak, but no news service has explored just what they prefer. Nor have any attempted to learn what the other 80 million Egyptians prefer. Mubarak apparently knew that when he refused to step down.

One press report stated that the incongruous images of men on horses and camels riding through Tahrir Square showed irate workers from the pyramids whose livelihood depended on tourism, which the demonstrators had wrecked. Actually, that account is more credible than that of a nationwide uprising for voting rights based on the actions of the youth of Cairo.

The third epiphany is that Mubarak has flushed out his opposition. Readers may be confident that the secret police have photographic images of every protestor in Tahrir Square. That is no longer a technological challenge.

The fourth epiphany is that pro-Mubarak and anti-Mubarak activists both look to the Army to stabilize the situation. The Army got what it wanted from Mubarak and is now living up to its promises and responsibilities. It is in control now.

The Army and the Ministry of Defense called on the anti-Mubarak activists to leave the Square, early on 2 February. The open source reports indicate the violent, pro-Mubarak men showed up in force when the anti-government demonstrators ignored the Army’s orders. They still labored under the misperception that Army inaction was Army sympathy or support.

The fifth epiphany is that the Army has not sided with the anti-government demonstrators. It appears the Army tolerated and used the demonstrations to ensure no dynastic succession. Every Egyptian leader since 1952 has been a military officer. The Army’s action protected that precedent. The Army all along appears to have acted in pursuit of its own parochial interests, which are negative towards Gamal Mubarak as the next president, but positive towards letting Hosni Mubarak serve to the end of his term of office.

One well informed, Brilliant Reader suggested that the next leader of Egypt will be announced this week, after Friday prayers. He is the Chief of the Armed Forces Staff.

What seems to have happened. A crackdown by pro-government proxy forces and secret police occurred on 2 February. The Army got what it wanted and will now proceed to clear Tahrir Square. Having satisfied the Army on the issue of succession, Mubarak has found a line he can hold so that he will make no further concessions.

Everything now depends on the actions of the army. In the NightWatch instability analysis, the onset of violence, precisely like that seen today, indicates a convergence towards power sharing. The government is attempting to prevent any further transfer of power to the opposition.

The opposition has been swelled by the infusion of power.  It has obtained international legitimacy, because el Baradei is its spokesman.  It is trying to hold its ground. It does not have legitimacy in Egypt necessarily and might not even be pro-democratic, despite the uncritical adulation of the American press. Some significant elements of the opposition are pro-Sharia, anti-US and anti-Israel.

The violence means that the pro- and anti-Mubarak entities are converging. Convergence is always violent because both sides seek to use force to achieve political dominance. Neither wants to share power.

If the Army stays neutral, some form of power sharing will be negotiated by el Baradei and Vice President General Omar Suleiman because the regime will have lost its guns. If not, the Army will clear the Square, indicating the guns remain loyal to the President.

The NightWatch prediction is the Army will clear the Square before Friday prayers. If that occurs, it will confirm that the Army has taken control of the government but is keeping Mubarak as a figurehead.

If that does not take place, the next phase of unrest will occur in which the uprising evolves into a movement for systemic change, also known as revolution. The Army collapses and every one from the Mubarak era runs for the exits.

Egypt-US: For the record. An Egyptian official remarked on 2 February that there is a contradiction in U.S. demands for both an orderly transition of government and for President Mubarak to step down  immediately, The Associated Press reported. The official also said that Mubarak’s decision not to seek re-election in September was not a result of pressure from the United States.

Comment: No matter the outcome in Egypt, Egyptian leaders will not trust the US. They will take US incentives, but they will never consider the US a reliable ally, paraphrasing an Israeli Ambassador today.

Read Full Post »

An article in the UK Guardian.  You have to make allowances as the Guardian is a rabidly left-wing paper with a Hate America agenda.  However, once you take that into account, this is an interesting column.  It makes the case very well that GW was telling the truth!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/07/iraq-weapons-factory-al-qaida-us-failure?showallcomments=true#comment-fold

Ask yourself:  “Self, did you believe the liberal mantra of “Bush Lied and People Died”?  If so, “yourself” was snookered again!

Regards,

Steamboat Jack

Read Full Post »

Wikileaks revisited

While the Pundits babble on, here is an alternate perspective on Wikileaks.

From:  http://www.strategypage.com/

Regards,

Steamboat Jack (my evil twin)

***********************************

INFORMATION WARFARE:  Why Wikileaks Backfired

December 6, 2010:
Wikileaks obtained hundreds of thousands of secret American military and diplomatic documents from a U.S. soldier (PFC Bradley Manning) who worked in intelligence. As such, Manning had a security clearance and access to SIPRNet (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network). This was a private Department of Defense network established in 1991, using Internet technology and able to handle classified (secret) documents. But Manning got access to a computer with a writable CD drive, and was able to copy all those classified documents to a CD (marked as containing Lady Gaga tracks) and walk out of his workplace with it. The big error here was having PCs available with writable media (USB ports, diskettes, printers or writable CD drives).

You need some PCs with these devices, but they should be few, and carefully monitored. Normally, you would not need to copy anything off SIPRNet. Most of the time, if you want to share something, it’s with someone else on SIPRNet, so you can just email it to them, or tell them what it is so they can call it up themselves. A network like SIPRNet usually (in many corporations, and some government agencies) has software that monitors who accesses, and copies, documents, and reports any action that meets certain standards (of possibly being harmful). SIPRNet did not have these controls in place.

Diplomatic messages, at least some of the lower level classified stuff, was put on SIPRNet by a  presidential directive that sought to get other departments sharing relevant data with military intelligence. This was to avoid the kind of bad communications that made possible the September 11, 2001 attacks. Before then, even though some American government agencies had prior information on the attackers, no one made the connection. Unless all this information is collected together to make it obvious what is going on, the attackers will go undetected until it is too late. As a result of the Manning leak, the State Department withdrew access to its material by SIPRNet.

In the last nine years, SIPRNet became extremely active, and what controls there were on the network were strained to the point that you could do just about anything. This sharing of information was very helpful in fighting Islamic terrorists. Yet, with 2.5 million troops and civilians having access to SIPRNet, there were very few leaks. All it takes is one person, though. For three years, Manning was a one man SIPRNet crime wave. He is now in jail, facing life in prison.

The leaked documents were meant (according to the Wikileaks leader) to embarrass the United States and expose American hypocrisy and underhanded operations, but the result was quite the opposite. The U.S. was shown trying to do what it said, publicly, that it was trying to do. But many other nations were shown to be quite different in their private conversations, than in their public ones. Some of these leaders now claim that they were misquoted, or that Wikileaks documents were a fabrication. It was initially believed that the released documents would make foreign officials more reluctant about speaking frankly with American officials. Didn’t happen. Those conversations take place mainly because everyone wants something from the United States, and unless you establish a relationship with American diplomats or officials, nothing will happen. Moreover, many foreign officials found the revelations useful, as the leaks got out into the open things (like Arab relationships with Iran and Israel) that could not be discussed openly at home. For the most part, Wikileaks confirmed what was already known, something the Wikileaks crew assumed could not be true.

Read Full Post »

Back in a previous lifetime, I used to teach operators how to run nuclear power plants.  So, I actually do know something about this subject, although I am certainly not an expert.  But, I do know more than 99% of the damn fools that pontificate on TV.   If THEY can talk on this subject, then I am also fully qualified to portray a Doctor on television.  (Although “they” refuse to let me prescribe drugs!) 

You might have seen the story wherein John Bolton said that we only have days to stop Iran’s nuclear program:  http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=185060 

and today:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100821/ts_nm/us_iran_bushehr_launch

Russia is about to fuel the Iranian nuclear power plant at Bushehr.  The idea is that after the power plant has fuel in it, an attempt to destroy it would release wide-spread radiation.  They appear to have “discovered” international laws against it. 

So…who cares and why?  Here’s what it’s all about: 

The concern, of course,  is that Iran is going to make an atomic bomb.  The leader of Iran has said that he is going to use a nuclear bomb to destroy Israel in a nuclear Holocaust.  They have PROMISED!  But it just isn’t that easy; it’s not like making an omelet. 

The technology of making the bomb once you have the fuel is difficult.  But, we can assume that Iran has that technology since the Moslem-Pakistani “scientist” A.Q Kahn sold nuclear technology to rogue nations:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3461855.stm 

Perhaps the most difficult part of the whole process is getting the fuel to make the bomb. There were two materials used for making the bomb.  The only naturally occurring one is a specific isotope of Uranium, i.e. U235.  That isotope is a very small part of naturally occurring Uranium, about 0.7%, with the balance 99.3% is mostly U238.   You need a minimum of 80% U235 for a primitive bomb with 90% the usual enrichment but all you need is a 110 pound chunk.

But….It is a real chore to separate U235 from natural Uranium.  See here for more information:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium 

So…right about now you may be asking yourself, “Self, what does enrichment have to do with anything?” 

Well, I’ve explained how difficult getting the U235 to make a bomb.  But, there is an easier way.  

Nuclear Power Plant fuel is only slightly enriched, at about 3 or 4% U235 and the rest of the Uranium in the fuel is U238.  And a curious thing happens with the U238 in the reactor.  

In the process that creates energy in the reactor, the U238 acts like a “poison” to the reaction.  But….some of the U238 is converted into Plutonium 239, and Pu239 can be used to make a bomb.  You only need about 35 pounds and since the Pu239 is chemically different from all of the other “stuff” in the fuel, you can separate out the Pu239 with relative ease. 

That’s why there is all of the interest in used nuclear power plant fuel.  It has “stuff” in it that can be used for a bomb and it’s easy to separate out.  

Now the Iranians are starting up a nuclear reactor built by the Russians.  And they “promise” to give the used fuel back to Russia for reprocessing.  I am sure that you can trust them just as much as Bubba Clinton and the pathetic fool Jimmy Carter trusted North Korea when they give North Korea nuclear reactors.  

The problem with blowing up a nuclear power plant is: 

When the fuel is first installed, it is only very slightly radioactive.  In addition, the fuel is in the form of chemically inert ceramic pellets.  So, if “They” were to blow up the reactor after it is fueled but before it is started up, there wouldn’t be much radiation released. 

Once the reactor starts up, there are two things that happen.   First, one by-product of the power process is the creation of radioactive waste products.  They start at 0% and build up to some constant value.  The second thing happening is that the ceramic fuel pellets slightly crumble over time.  So, the longer the reactor operates, the greater the danger of releasing radioactivity should someone “blow” it up.

It appears that the Iranians are using U235 enrichment technology for their bomb program.  Also, this particular power plant is of a design that is not very efficient in the production of Pu239. (It is a pressurized water reactor working on thermal neutrons vs. a high temperature reactor working on fast neutrons if you really want to know.)

So, this reactor is useless in the short-term and not very effective in the long-term for making bombs.  Honestly, it would appear that the destruction of the centrifuge facilities are of a higher priority in limiting the Iranian ability to make a nuclear bomb.

I am guessing that all of this is just “Sturm und Drang” for now. 

Word for the week:  Sturm und Drang came to be associated with literature or music aimed at frightening the audience or imbuing them with extremes of emotion.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturm_und_Drang

Regards,

Steamboat Jack (my evil twin)

 PS

Remember when the Dems and their boot lick media reported the story that Iran had stopped their atomic bomb production?  It was all lies and their lies may still lead to a nuclear Holocaust.

https://precinct201.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/381/?preview=true&preview_id=381&preview_nonce=dccfe32ecd

Read Full Post »

Way back when poor GW was President, he was going to institute the “surge” in Iraq.  General Petraeus was going to head the effort and GW had him explain the plan to the Democrat controlled Congress.  

Hillary insulted him: she called him a liar in very thinly veiled language:

“…require the willing suspension of disbelief.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjcTb2ORVd0

And no apology from the NY Times who ran the “General Betray-us” ad from MoveOn. Org

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/06/24/moveon-org-removes-general-betray-us-ad-website

General Petraeus (and poor GW) told the truth; Democrats lied.

General Petraeus (and poor GW) was right; Democrats were wrong.

General Petraeus (and poor GW) were doing their best for our country and the future of our children; the Dems were doing everything they could to cause them to fail.

And then there is Bozo Biden on the surge:
“I just think it’s the absolute wrong strategy,” Biden said Tuesday of an increase in troops”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/26/politics/main2299237.shtml

No apology from him either, now he says:

(the surge/Iraq)….. is one of “Obama’s great achievements”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/vice-president-biden-iraq-could-be-one-of-the-great-achievements-of-this-administration.html

Is the man (and the Democrats for that matter) totally unhinged?

And now, since “I AM the ONE we have been waiting for” relieved General McCrystal of command in Afghanistan, General Petraeus (Betray-us?)is going to save Afghanistan for the Dems.

Irony?

Pray for our country.

Steamboat Jack (my evil twin)

Read Full Post »

A Dead Horse

Here I am, beating a dead horse over and over again! 

We hurtle towards the precipice:

 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100627/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_iran 

https://precinct201.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/381/

https://precinct201.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/if-you-dont-remember/

https://precinct201.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/summer-of-2010/ 

Pray for our country.

Regards,

Steamboat Jack (my evil twin)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »