Frontline America

Back from Afghanistan

2009-05-14T22:32:00.002-04:00

Hello All!!

Its been so long since I've been home. I spent the last two years doing humanitarian work along the border of Afghanistan and its been amazingly eye opening. Posts will come shortly. Still trying to get my affairs in order. Coming back from the dead requires quite a bit of paperwork.

A War On Our Shores

2007-01-16T11:15:00.000-05:00

America has become the frontline. We did not invade a country. We did not provoke such an attack. On 9/11/2001 an enemy, offended by our lifestyle, commited an act of war. We are currently at war with not only those responsible but against all who would commit murder as a legitamate military tactic.

Let us be frank. There is really only one group of people that have embraced this tactic as a weapon. Muslims. Sanctioned by their Koran and the example of their prophet they commit the most horrible crimes on the face of the earth. Perhaps one may suggest that not all Muslims support such horrific crimes against humanity. Then let them speak!! Five years have passed and only a handfuls of Muslims have stood up to denounce purposely crashing civilian passenger planes into civilian offices, homes, and daycare facilities.

Islam is refusing to police itself. If a Nazi nutcase wraps himself in the Christian religion and then blows up a civilian building it is immediatly denounced and condemned by every Christian church in the world. Why is the Muslim world silent to attrocities? Silence is solemn support. Arabs danced in the streets on 9/11/2001. They found joy in pain and suffering.

Nothing has changed. If some Muslims want peace they must fight alongside of us. Civilization and humanity have been attacked.

We fight with a conscience and try to limit civilian casualties. They target women and children purposefully. There must be no negotiating with murderers. They do not understand peace. They only know how to rearm.

We must effect four steps to secure our civilization.
1. We must wake up as a people to face the peril of our situation.
2. We must topple all regimes that refuse to hunt the jihadists.
3. We must kill, capture, or silence the jihadists everywhere.
4. We must eradicate Islam that demands the blood of our people.

What will you do?

Will you by your silence... give them the tools to destroy the innocent?
910group.com Begin to fight back.

Reexamining The Partitioning of Iraq

2007-01-14T15:46:00.000-05:00

There have been many who have discussed what won't work in Iraq. Frankly there does not seem to be much that will work for sure. It is at this time that I think that it would be wise to reexamine partitioning Iraq. First, we must be realistic with the dangers of partitioning.

1. Kurdistan. The most obvious partition will be separating the kurds from the Sunni/Shiite mess. Unfortunatly this will get us into very hot water with Turkey. The southern section of Turkey has a high concentration of Kurds who have long petitioned for a Kurdistan. Turkey has violently opposed this movement. If we provide a Kurdistan on the border of Turkey it really won't take long for the Turkish Kurds to immigrate to the new country. This will seriously tick off Turkey. Once the Kurdistan/Turkey issue is resolved with a probable effect of serious long term issues with Turkey we can rather easily partition the Shiites from the Sunnis.

2. Baghdad. Who gets Baghdad? This is a serious question that will not go away. Both groups want this old seat of power which is a large part of the current problem. Should we put up a wall? Berlin II? Either way there are problems. Perhaps we can set up an international city like Jerusalem. Both peoples live in peace. But with such Muslim sects that may be impossible. It would either be better to put up a wall or better yet give the city to one of the groups in exchange for more territory outside the capital.

3. Border issues. The border must be a wide border that is mostly uninhabited. Unfortunatly there are many mortars and RPG's that are in militia hands. The border will have to cut through some inhabited areas. Rather many inhabited areas. These residential areas will have to be flattened and people forceably evicted. Both sides of the border would have to be patrolled by Shiite and Sunni army personnel. This will solve the issue of a Civil War and the issue will become one of national conflict. Which will hopefully be soldiers shooting at soldiers rather than terrorists cutting shopkeepers heads off.

4. Terrorist states. Would this plan not allow both sides to build up armies with the support of countries from their religious sects? Yes, Sunnistan would get much military support from Egypt, Saudia Arabia, etc and Shiitestan would be getting a lot of support from Iran. On the plus side both of these countries would have incentives to get rid of terrorists. Countries want soldiers while factions tolerate terrorists. Terrorists attack civilians while soldiers attack soldiers. Soldiers answer to the government. Governments answer to the people. We will provide continued military advising on anti-terrorism missions. If either country violates the other's border we withdraw support from that country.

5. Relocation. This will cause a global outcry as we seek racial cleansing of areas. I will say this once. We have done it before and we ought to do it again. (think Germans and Poles)

Lets look at the upside. We gain a valuable ally. Kurdistan. We hopefully will win the Shiites over and keep them away from full support of Iran. We will give the Shiites a vested interest in defending their country from an exterior enemy (Sunnistan). We will give the Sunnis a proper way of defending themselves and controlling their destiny. This plan will allow the Shiites and Sunnis to stop bickering over customs and laws. Best of all it puts the security issue in Iraqi hands and allows us to get out to rearm for dealing with Iran.

Issues that need to be resolved. Baghdad. Oil Revenues. Army Recruitment/Training. Border Creation.

Excellent Piece From Jihad Watch

2006-11-10T14:43:00.000-05:00

This piece is from Jihadwatch.org... it is right on. If Islam is a religion of peace it better get on the ball with denouncing those who are "hijacking" their religion. Because it certainly seems like they readily house and harbor terrorists. They seem unable or at least unwilling to kick these militants out from under their religious umbrella.

November 09, 2006
"An almost airtight legal argument" against the Islamic death penalty for apostasy
Moderate Muslims have been an ongoing preoccupation of this site. I have repeatedly asked that they confront and refute the Islamic arguments of jihadists -- which is the one thing they must do if they are going to prevail in the Islamic community, and which shouldn't be difficult in light of their insistence that Islam is fundamentally peaceful.
But despite a great deal of bluster, there is no large-scale organized movement of Muslims countering the jihadists, and no coherent moderate Muslim theology that teaches against jihad and the subjugation of unbelievers on Islamic grounds, with the possible exception of academic constructs that have no roots in Islamic tradition and no following among Muslims, and the certain exception of deceptive pieces that make unbelievers feel great but likewise have no acceptance among Muslims.
And there are a lot of those deceptive pieces. Yesterday after Jihad Watch reader James alerted me to Dean Esmay's latest defamatory comment, about which I wrote here, I ventured again into the fetid waters of the Esmay site. I found that Esmay was commenting on a post by Ali Eteraz entitled "How The Death Penalty For Apostasy Will Fall."
This is just the sort of thing that we need to see, right? Islamic arguments against the death penalty for apostasy! Here then is a small sign of the Islamic reform that everyone (except those who believe that Islam is essentially peaceful and needs no reform) wants to see, right? And it starts out well: Eteraz acknowledges that there is a death penalty for apostasy, which many Islamic apologists in the West have denied, and promises an "almost airtight legal argument against it."
Classical Islamic Law — where national citizenship was based on one's religion — mandated a death penalty for converting out of Islam. This medieval remnant has too long been part of modern Islamic Law. There is now a palpable cultural movement against this. We knew that. Here, for edification, is an almost airtight legal argument against it. I posted this is on my blog and I am copying and pasting it.
*
A hadith narrative from Bayhaqi's Book of Hadith, regarding the Prophet's directive to kill an apostate woman, falls to critical evaluation.
It is interesting to note that the scholars did not even engage in a matn (textual) analysis. The hadith was lacking on isnad (chain of narration) grounds and they didn't even have to proceed to evaluating its text. Assuming the hadith would have passed the isnad test, the matn test would have involved looking to see if the hadith was a) logical and b) consistent with the Quran.
Click on Eteraz's link. This is no breakthrough. This is an examination of a hadith about killing apostate women. The fact that it is a weak hadith has long been noted, and that's why the schools of Islamic law are not unanimous about the necessity of killing female apostates -- as I noted in passing here. This is not a new development, and hence it is no sign of any evolution in the Islamic legal understanding of the death penalty for apostasy.
My prediction: one by one (here is another one revealed as weak) all of these tertiary apostasy hadith will be discredited. Then we'll be left with nothing but a couple of hadith which satisfy the isnad test — but which won't be able to satisfy the matn analysis. Why? Because the Quran does not legislate an earthly punishment for leaving Islam, so when a hadith contradicts that, it has become inconsistent with the Quran, and therefore questionable.
Click on the link again. It's a hadith about giving the apostate a chance to repent -- not about the death penalty for apostasy itself. Does Eteraz think people will not click on his links? Moreover, he asserts that the death penalty for apostasy contradicts the Qur'an -- funny how all the many Islamic jurists who have upheld the death penalty for apostasy over the centuries, in all the schools of Islamic law, never seem to have noticed that.
UPDATE: Even as I say that, here is THE authoritative hadith on the issue of apostasy (cited in both Muslim and Bukhari), becoming highly questionable in light of a matn (textual) analysis. You may not realize it now, but this is big.
Yes, click the link. See anything in there about this hadith, in which Muhammad says "Whoever changes his religion, kill him" (من بدل دينه فاقتلوه), being inauthentic? I don't either. In fact, its multiple attestation is affirmed:
This narrative or a part of it with some variations has been reported in Bukhari (narrative no. 2854, 6524 and 6525), Muslim (narrative no. 1733), Mu'atta of Imam Malik (narrative no. 1413), Ibn Hibban (narrative no. 4475 and 5606), Abu Dawood (narrative no. 4351 and 4354), Tirmidhi (narrative no. 1458), Nissaiy (narrative no. 4059, 4060, 4061, 4062, 4063, 4064, 4065 and 4066), Ibn Maajah (narrative no. 2535), Nissaiy's Sunan al-Kubraa (narrative no. 3522, 3523, 3524, 3525, 3526, 3527, 3528 and 3529), Bayhaqiy (narrative no. 16597, 16598, 16599, 16635, 16636, 16637, 16654, 16658 and 17841), Ahmad ibn Hanbal (narrative no. 1871, 2551, 2552, 2968, 19681 and 22068), Abu Ya`laa (narrative no. 2532 and 2533), Humaidiy (narrative no. 533), Abd al-Razzaq (narrative no. 9413, 18705 and 18706), Ibn Abi Shaybah (narrative no. 28992, 29006, 32728, 33143 and 36491). The preferred text is reported in Bukhari's narrative no. 2854.
What's more, the article affirms the traditional rules of jihad and dhimmitude, which I have pointed out many times:
...In short, the Qur'an says that it is the unalterable law of God that when He sends His messenger to a people, the polytheists among these people are left with no option, but to accept His message or to face the punishment of death and sometimes complete annihilation.
The Qur'an goes further to tell us how this punishment was implemented on the polytheists from among the rejecters of the Prophet (pbuh). It tells us that although the previous nations of the messengers of God were annihilated, because of their rejection, through (apparently) natural calamities, the believers of Muhammad (pbuh), because God has given them rule in a land (Madinah), shall fight the rejecters and, thereby, through these believers shall God implement His punishment (Al-Tawbah 9: 14 - 16). It directs them that the Mushrikeen should be killed, without any exception. They should only be allowed to live if they accept Islam (Al-Tawbah 9: 5). On the other hand, it also directs them that the Jews and the Christians (because they were not polytheists - i.e. Mushrik), even if they do not enter the folds of Islam, they may be allowed to live if they accept to live under the Muslim rule and agree to pay the appointed Jizyah (Al-Tawbah 9: 29).
All it has are some textual variants: in some versions, Muhammad doesn't say "kill him," he says, "break his neck." Oh, I feel so much better! Reform is at hand!
But the weakness of his argument doesn't stop Eteraz from rushing on to some sweeping conclusions:
Let me say it again: there is no Quranic basis for an EARTHLY punishment for apostasy. (Maududi tried to find one but he failed). As such, the death penalty for apostasy is rooted in the hadith. Within the three links above, the single most important apostasy hadith, and a couple of corollary hadith, have been discredited. It becomes really difficult, in light of this information, to persuasively argue that Islamic Law should permit a death penalty for apostasy.
Now, the issue is to spread these opinions so more people can get out of their ignorance.
Yes, it's all about ignorance, isn't it? Those poor ignorant Islamic scholars, all over the world, blundering in darkness and relying on this hadith in which Muhammad says "If anyone changes his religion, kill him" to legislate a death penalty for apostasy. If only they knew that Ali Eteraz has declared this a weak hadith on the grounds that in some versions Muhammad says to break the apostates' necks!
If this is the bandwagon of Islamic reform that we are all supposed to jump on, on pain of being called "traitors" and "liars" and "hatemongers" and everything else Dean Esmay has called me, I will take a pass. The problem, of course, is not that I am not convinced. It is that no Muslim who can read and check Eteraz's links will be convinced. No one who believes in the death penalty for apostasy will be convinced. And they are the ones who need to be convinced.

Solution to Election Fraud

2006-11-07T20:41:00.000-05:00

PS- Burkhas make better voters.....(Whoa.... just kidding... just kidding)

North Korea Military Capabilities

2006-11-01T21:09:00.000-05:00

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea or DPRK) is a formidable enemy in terms of land combat systems and highly trained special forces. The quality of all the non infantry forces of the country can be called into question but the shear volume of material and dedicated planning have made the DPRK an adversary that is fully capable of making good its intention of reunification with South Korea by force of arms. This post will analyze the intentions and the capabilities of the DPRK.

The intentions of North Korea are three fold: North and South Reunification, DPRK Leadership of Unified Korea, and Military Forced Reunification. Further it is important to note that previous military doctrine called for full mobilization of the population and full fortification of the population. In order to achieve their eventual goals the DPRK has provided fortified bunkers for a large portion of its populace. Most of the bunkers are immune to a general nuclear strike. Further there has been the emphasis on arming the whole population in the event of a military conflict. Though this emphasis on a general people's war was accepted public doctrine up till the 1990's there has been a significant shift over the past ten years. This new doctrine emphasizes the quality of the frontline troops, the depth of fire across the battlefield, command and control, and the flow of munitions and materials. In short they have made a launched into a full modernization of the tactics and strategies of their military. Chief among these strategies has been the new emphasis upon their special forces.

It is important to note that South Korea estimates that North Korea has stockpiled approx. 990,000 tons of ammunition most of which is already deployed to hardened munition dumps along the DMZ. Due to the current deployment of North Korean troops there would probably not be a significant increase in military traffic before the beginning of a full assualt. Estimates suggest that 70% of the North Korean forces are deployed within 100 Kilometers of the DMZ. Since the reunification assault is the primary purpose of the military the number of plans have been practiced repeatedly and are well understood by many of the oficers even down to the regimental levels. In short an assault on South Korea could begin at any moment.

Such an attack would be characterized by three stages. First stage: penetrate the DMZ, insert special forces to dissable command and control facilities as well as airfields, deep missile strikes, destruction of forces along the DMZ. Second Stage: isolate Seoul and consolidate conquered territory. Third stage: conquer the remaining territory and overwhelm remaining defenders. The whole general scenario relies heavily on strategic surprise and rapid achievement of objectives before South Korea can mobilize their reserves or heavy US reinforcements can land. Unfortunatly US land forces are limited by treaty to 37,500 servicemen in South Korea. Recently we have redeployed 10,000 of those soldiers to Iraq. Over the next year the proposal is to remove 2,500 more.

North Korea has approximatly 700,000 infantry, approximatly 8,000 artillery systems, and 2,000 tanks prepositioned within 90 kilometers of the DMZ. This number constantly is increasing as North Korea slowly redeploys their forces towards the DMZ. The active army in North Korea consists of 1,000,000 men perhaps as high as 1,200,000 men. The reserves are to the number of seven million. The active military is one of the highest trained in the world with special emphasis placed on large scale operations. North Korea's air force consists of approximatly 110,000 personnel but its emphasis is in operating the thousands of anti-aircraft batteries scattered across the country. North Korea's main strategy is to neutralize South Korea's airforce thus ensuring at least neither side gaining air supremacy.

To put all this in proper context it is important to note the current capabilities of South Korea. Active army is standing around 560,000. The Marine Corps has approximatly 25,000 men on active duty. South Korea's Air Force is naturally far superior than its northern neighbors in both quantity and quality.

North Korea, China, and the Bomb

2006-10-28T18:55:00.000-04:00

Word is coming in that there is activity at the nuclear test site in North Korea. There is the arrival of soldiers, trucks, and most incriminating is the construction of a building. Further there appears to be the construction of a second site that mirrors the first site. Are these the actions of a remorseful nation? But what might be very interesting is the involvement of China in the procedings.

Yes, it is true that China is trading in North Korea expecially for Iron Ore. China has now stood before the international community and stated that North Korea has explicitly promised no new detonations unless provoked. This is an unusual situation that calls for a bit of attention.

On October 9th, 2006 Kim ordered the detonation of a nuclear blast. He apparently only informed China 20 minutes before he decided to provoke the whole world. It is important to note the loss of face that Kim Jong Mad has dished China. China is no fool and does not really trust North Korea with a nuke. But China does not want to appear to be unsupportive of one of the few Communist countries in the world. Further China does not wish to lose its valuable trade with North Korea.

What to watch for? Watch for China playing it aloof until the second detonation. At that point China will come to the table and will begin to put serious pressure on North Korea. China does not want a war in that area of the world and certainly does not want to get pulled into a conflict with the USA without the benefit of preparation and surprise.

Further, watch for Kim to try to fix his nuke since the first one almost fizzled. It may take them awhile to try to figure out what went wrong. This may play into the political strategy since it allows them to cool down the international situation before blowing up another mountain. Unless we pull out of Korea expect them to detonate another nuke sooner or later.

Irrelevancy of Winning in Iraq

2006-10-22T12:32:00.000-04:00

Yes, it is irrelevant if we are winning in Iraq. It only matters at the end of the day who wins. We were losing the whole duration of the American Revolution. We had our capitol burned to the ground in the War of 1812. The Union was losing for most of the Civil War. Certainly we were losing for most of WWII.

The question must not be whether or not we are winning in Iraq but what must be done to win in Iraq. Though it may seem like a word game remember that words are thoughts. A simple change in phrasing can change the whole world. Liberals run around crying that we cannot win in Iraq. How can we not win in Iraq if we choose to do so? We outnumber the Iraqis 11 to 1. Our GDP is 460 times greater than Iraq's GDP. If we were to dedicate 1% of the nation's income to winning in Iraq we would have the buying power of four and a half times the amount of goods and services that Iraq produces in a year.

Iraq Total Population: 26,783,383
USA Total Population: 300,000,000

Iraq GDP: $25.5 Billion 2004 (whitehouse.gov)
USA GDP: $11,733.5 Billion 2004 (econstats.com)

In short the real reason we have not won in Iraq is that we don't want to win (at least not yet). Now hold on before you get all sad and depressed. We are choosing to not "win" now so that there will be a lasting peace. Sure we would like to destroy the insurgency but we don't want to do many of the things necessary to destroy it. Sure we could shoot every military age male in Iraq and the insurgency would be effectively over. But we don't want to do that. It would have a detrimental effect on the formation of democracy.

In short we can win whenever we wish regardless of what panzie liberals will say. But as the Bush administration has clearly laid out. (not that the liberals have actually read the plan before disagreeing with it) The solution that we are involved in is going to take time. We are building a lasting democracy. The liberals say its impossible but we say that it is possible it simply is going to take time.

We can win whenever we want to and are winning as we please. That is the power of our 11.7 trillion dollar economy. (Note: we reportedly have a 13.1 trillion dollar economy now)(Further note: that increase is equivelant to the GDP of India, Indonesia, AND Iran)

What about Sudan?

2006-10-12T18:20:00.000-04:00

When was the last time you heard about Sudan? Dafur and the UN Peacekeeping force are little talked about subjects when it comes to current events. This is a very important topic when it comes to terrorism though. The Sudan is a perfect breeding ground for the very brutal and inhuman terrorists that we face in Iraq and here at home.

Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said last month "What the al Qaeda in Iraq could do in May and what they can do today has been seriously degraded. They are not as effective or as organized today as they were back in May. But they're still an organization out there." The general said about 50 to 70 foreign fighters enter Iraq every month. "We know that most of them come from Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt and Syria."

I can understand Saudia Arabia, I can even understand Egypt but Sudan is an awfully long way from home. The reason that we are fighting Sudanese fighters is that these hard core Islamafascists are highly experienced soldiers who are indoctrinated in radical teachings.

I would like to point out that the human rights abuses in that region merit much more media attention than Mr. Foley's disturbing actions.(as horrible as they are) Darfur is almost infinitly more bloody than even Iraq. These human rights attrocities demand action. There needs to be African Peacekeepers in there. There needs to be someone in there.

We have a special interest in stabilizing the Sudan but so does the world.

PS- I don't care if Sudan wants to reject peacekeepers. This mini-holocost needs to stop.

The answer to global warming

2006-03-13T14:56:00.000-05:00

Ladies and gentlemen get your shorts untied because the conservatives have been lying all along. They said that there was nothing we could do to reverse global warming but here at Frontline America Inc. our dedicated team of scientists have been working diligently to propose a radical solution to the "Global Warming Crisis".

Dr. Chung Nung is a leading scientist at our lab and will now explain the simple yet effective plan for deGlobal Warming. "First we must consider all the options to date", said Dr. Nung, "we have treaties that will destroy many economies including our own. Unfortunatly these treaties are just too weak to make any sizable impact on the global readings. We have no choice but to use a simple cloud making device to reflect a vast amount of Solar Radiation back into space."

"We are very excited that this program has gotten the green light from our President", said Dr. Nung, "and we look forward to seeing it for real."

Below is a picture of Dr. Chung Nung with his coworkers putting the finishing touches on the "deGlobal Warming I".

The "deGlobal Warming I" is a relatively unmodified Minuteman III InterContinental Ballistic Missile mounting a single 300KiloTon warhead.

"We selected the Minuteman III because it was very flexible. We could aim it anywhere in the world where we could kick up a large dust cloud. When we began the program in 2001 it was suggested by the US Air Force that we look into using Iraq as a test location. That plan was scrapped a few years ago and until recently we did not have any nation that would volunteer to host the program. This all changed when we got the "go ahead" from the President to use Iran as a subject."

"We are very confident that it will work", said Dr. Nung, "and it is better than Kyoto because it will only destroy one economy. If it doesn't work the first time we have been assured by the United States Government that we can have as many as we like."

DPGC- The Future is Ours

2006-03-12T22:23:00.000-05:00

(Uday and Qusay biting the bullet.. or TOW)

A brief history: First we created the League of Nations but it didn't work. So then we created the UN and it worked for a bit then stopped working. So we created NATO and it worked for a bit before it stopped working. Now we need the "Doesn't Play Games Crew"(DPGC).

If you have ever picked up a book on history you have seen that history is full of stories of peoples being exterminated, destroyed, and crushed. It is the responsibility of nations to protect its people. Sadly the wealthiest nations have always been the primary targets of lesser nations. For this reason the powerful nations have needed to control the world to deter invasion, attacks, and rebellion. Call it paranoia but those that have achieved have something to defend. Those nations with slum cities are willing to step up to the gambling table of war to improve their lot in life.

Attila at Chalons.

We, the civilized nations of the world, must not only sieze control of the world but we must be seen to be in control. I certainly do not advocate us doing this alone. We must organize the "haves" and bring them to the table and form a council of the willing. History will judge us differently than the media. The question is whether we will survive and thrive as a people. We must secure a stable world. Trouble makers need to be confronted and dealt with in the language they understand, brutal force.

The DPGC will be able to project power but will use such power to keep the peace. As such a force, we should not meddle with contries politics unless they are in severe breech of human rights. Invasions and any form of coercion will not be tolerated. Developement of nuclear weapons will be dealt with firmly. We will be the final arbitor. We will be the last one standing. Game time is over, school is about to start.

Don't like it? Fine. But don't step out of line or you will feel the heat.

DPGC- the Future is our Fifty First State

Islam a religion of peace.

2006-03-06T10:05:00.000-05:00

Every religion has its dissidents, those who do not hold to the fundamentals of the faith. These people are readily labeled "cultural _____". We really should not judge a religion by its cultural following yet that is exactly what we are doing with Islam. We go to cultural Muslims to get sound bites and they will give firm testimony that Islam is a religion of peace.

Let us examine this "religion of peace". First challenge is to come up with more than two hot spots in the world that do not involve Muslims. (other than Taiwan and Korea: note that no actual fighting has been conducted in these "hot spots" for a couple of decades) Kashmir... Muslims, Bosnia... Muslims, Israel.... Muslims, Sudan.... Muslims, Iraq... Muslims, Acha before the Tsunami was an Islamic insurgency in Indonesia, Ivory Coast... Muslims, Balkins... Muslims, we could go on and on.

Then there is the discussion of religious persecution. 200,000 Christians killed in East Timor by Muslims, 60,000 killed in the Philippines, and 2.3 million Christians exterminated in Sudan in the past 10 years. Peaceful huh?

Even in moderate countries such as Jordan nearly 1,000 people are executed a year for converting to a foreign religion. If such a religion is so drenched in blood I find it hard to call it a religion of peace. The Koran does not read like a book about peace but one of war.

Now I am not advocating that we discourage cultural Muslims from practicing a peaceful version of Islam!! I would much rather cultural Islam to supplant violent Islam but let us realistically face the fact that wherever Islam is not tempered by worldliness it is violent. It tries to conquer new lands and forceably convert people to Islam and those who refuse will die.

Let us fight terrorism but lets not be so ignorant as to wonder why terrorists are all Muslims.

2006-02-25T23:46:00.000-05:00

(China and Russia in 2005 in excercises)

In my weak moments I wonder.... what if China were to.....

Yeah, if you have studied military stuff and foreign policy you know it is a foolish worry but I just can't shake it. I often resort to saying dumb things to justify it like "well by 2015....." and "if we were to get in a ground war with them...". Both statements are nonsensical. Projections as far as 10 years down the road are crazy and where in the whole asian world will we get into a ground war with China???!!?? (Taiwan doesn't count because they gotta cross our ocean.)

Can they mount a navy? Yes, if ... 1. its near to their military ports (all their ships are conventional diesal boats and they don't have sufficient refueling capabilities to extend their arm beyond the South China Sea except for very short duration excercises.)

2. if there is not a heavy use of enemy air (the Chinese navy has a few missile boats but not nearly enough to contend with a concerted airstrike) TANGENT WARNING!! Why the crap don't we have long range Naval Bombers!!! Sure there aren't many strong navies in the world but still! We need some long range naval bombers. Somebody wake up the bureacrats in Washington to stop blocking the designs!! This is a critical flaw in our naval coverage. I hope the Chinese and Russians don't try something stupid to exploit it.

Russia has the Tu-22M long range naval bomber... why can't we have one?

There is the grave misgiving about Taiwan because China.... 1. only needs to deny us air superiority for a matter of days 2. its close enough that some of their shore SAMs can get in on the action and 3. they can take heavy losses and still win.

Sure but the facts are clear... 1. Taiwan has a very nice air force supplied by the wonderful US of A. 2. If we can get one modified Ohio class submarine (the ones with all the cruise missiles instead of ICBMs) into that straight we pretty much win. 3. If we get one carrier battle group near the straight we win. 4. It will take time to stage the troops and landing craft perhaps as much as a month (clearly visible by satellite)

Ohio class Submarine (not refitted with cruise missiles)

But there is the thousands of medium range missiles that China has near Taiwan and the thousands of fighters (mostly crap but they each still take a missile) there too.

What if they can figure out a way to deceive us for a few weeks or rather distract us....? It worries me and I know it shouldn't. That is what drives me crazy. Could they do it? NO! Does it worry me? YES! The Chinese are smart, patient, and sly a very dangerous combination.

Nothing is as straighforward as it seems..

2006-02-23T18:46:00.000-05:00

Take national defense. There are plenty of people that have been bashing Bush on the cutting down of the Army Reserve. There is truth in the fact that a bigger Army Reserve, with everything else equal is a bonus to our national defense. However we must realize that sending money to units that are not as useful in the war on terror instead of sending it to say recruit more Active Duty Special Forces is just plain stupid.

Now on to the ports deal. One... we have a choice here as well. We must chose one or the other. We can either honor our friends and allies building that relationship or we can "secure our ports better". Now I am hesitant to agree with many liberals and conservatives on this point because firstly I am not seeing a terrible danger from UAE citizens having a knowledge of our ports. There is deterance. If a UAE citizen screws us we will make the UAE a smoking crater visible from Iraq. Additionally I have this crazy belief that Arabs aren't our enemy.. rather our enemy happens to be Arabs.

To further elaborate on the point of relationships I would like to bring some Cultural Anthropology to bear. Relationships are not nearly as important to us as they are in the Arab world. In the Arab world people will do something for you if they have a good relationship with you. Whether something is good for them or whether its a smart thing to do takes second place to such relational thinking. On the other hand if they hate you.. they will do whatever it takes to screw you over until they die in a tremendous explosion. (example-Al Qaeda)

Next let me reiterate that this Arab company will not be in charge of security or inspections. Further dock workers need Identification and Green Cards. The people on the docks will probably still be mostly American citizens. The only security threat is information on security procedures going to the company.

So the short of this issue in my mind is a near term vs. long term view. If we alienate Arabs by proving that our war really is against Arabs not just Al Qaeda we will be doing more harm to our cause than if we permit this to continue.

-The UAE is a vital ally in the UN,
-the UAE a vital ally in staging troops and aircraft,
-the UAE is vital in denying Al Qaeda a safe harbor,
-the UAE is vital in providing intelligence,
-the UAE is essential in cutting finances to terrorists (they are the banking nexus in the Middle East),
-and the UAE is critical in keeping the oil of the world flowing through their waters.
US carrier in Jebel Ali, UAE.

If the UAE takes insult at this grave sign of distrust and carelessness as to the relationship we will be severely handicapped in our war on terror. Sure offend Saudi Arabia and I will give a "hoorah!" but play with our relations with the UAE as if they are meaningless and you court disaster.

If we hit Iran... where will our refueling tankers fly out of?
If we enact sanctions against Iran.. who will freeze their assets?
If Iran tries to shut down the Straight of Hormuz with destroyers, mines, or shore based missiles... in whose waterways will our oil tankers use? And in whose waters will we float our destroyers?

Yes! The good old United Arab Emirates!!

Lets not piss them off so they end up saying "you don't trust us with your ports... we don't trust your refueling units in our country". Remember what they did during the Iran/Iraq war.

"Fujairah's prominence as a convenient 'bunker stop' was born out of the Iran/Iraq war in the mid 1980's. The only ship's entrance to the Gulf, through the Straits of Hormuz, was mined and tankers were also targeted by Iranian fire. Passage became restricted to US and Royal Navy protected convoys. Fujairah is in the outer Gulf, and as vessels queued up waiting to go through the strait in convoys." (Global security)
The above is what Iran is proported to have deployed near the Straight of Hormuz.

History has a way of repeating itself.. what if the UAE sided with Iran? How would we be able to support our troops in Iraq logistically? Currently the plan if the straight is shut down would be to portage the supplies over the UAE.

Long term vs. the Short Term (hard choice but I have set forth my opinion.)

For those worried... Could we take Iran next month?

2006-02-21T23:10:00.000-05:00

<-NOT Invasion..

First we go to the objective in Iran... "On 28 October 2003 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on "Iran - Security Threats and US Policy". This hearing included an exchange between Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State:
Hagel: Regime change in Iran - is that our policy?
Armitage: No, sir.
Hagel: What is our policy?
Armitage: Our policy is to try to eliminate the ability of Iran to carry forward with disruptive policies, such as the development of WMD [weapons of mass destruction], such as the abandonment of human rights, such as repression against minorities, such as religious oppression against the Bahais, and to try to get them to eschew their state sponsorship of terrorism." (THANKS AGAIN GLOBALSECURITY.org)

Think Shock and Awe II
(Note: that's a B52 and a B2 taking off from Diega Garcia.)
The question is not about land forces... though we clearly have enough... the issue will be:
1.Identification of targets
2.Air supremacy for 2 days
3. Available payload & penetration capability

1.First the targets... sources claim that there are perhaps 2 dozen sites of interest with regard to nuclear development. Due to the urgency of taking out ALL of the research facilities we must assume that there will be more bombed than that. Our satellites have been locked onto the major sites for years. The smaller and possibly mobile sites will have to be revealed by human intelligence from defectors or careful attention via satellite.

As with any air campaign there will need to suppress enemy Surface to Air Missile (SAM) batteries as well as concentrated Anti Aircraft Artillery (AA guns). Many of these are fixed leading them to have been spotted and plotted by our military. Unfortunatly Iran is currently in negotiations to aquire 29 SA15 Gauntlet systems which are some very nasty low to medium altitude mobile SAM's that Iran may deploy before we can hit them.

2. Air supremecy.... Iran can mount an estimated 20 F-14A's, an undisclosed number of Su-25's, and perhaps 7 Tu-22Ms, 19 MIG-27s, and several MIG-31s (unconfirmed)(MIG 31 pictured at right)

In the end our fighters and bombers will have to contend with at most 60-70 fourth generation fighters. Those numbers are high due to the "soft" nature of the "generations". For those who are not analysts aircraft are generally grouped into generations to match up common capabilities. All F-14's, F-15's, F-16's, and F-18's are 4th generation fighters. In addition we now have a wing of 5th generation fighters at our disposal. On December 15, 2005 the 27th Fighter Squadron at Langley was officially using F-22's and operational.

We have not had a problem with Air Supremacy since mid WWII. It is confounding to me that anyone would think a pushover like Iran will do us in. However there are those who think our military is stretched too thin.

F-22's- about 80-90?? (couldn't find a hard number just a delivery timetable that was fuzzy)
Overall Fighters on Active duty as of 2001- 906 Air force, 432 Navy, and 280 Marine fighters.(almost exclusively all being fourth generation or higher)
Overall fighters in Reserve- Approximatly half the active duty in all branches

3. Payload and penetration
Active force of B52's- 85 (last picture below... huge beasts)

Active force of B-2's- 21 (Stealth Bombers)

Enough said... but just to teach a bit of respect...

So to the sniveling wusses out there that don't understand that we can take anyone, anywhere, at anytime and take China just for fun ain't got no sense.

2006-02-20T23:17:00.000-05:00

The liberals have us again.. surely our military is weak and unable to handle all this at once.... Please note the aircraft carriers of the world. Now just stretch this visual representation to all aspects of our military. Thanks for the image goes to Globalsecurity.org at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm

Losing the War on Terrorism

2006-02-20T17:35:00.000-05:00

Certainly we may lose the War on Terrorism by giving up. Our forces are moving forward in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the globe. The rebuilding of Iraq is going far better than the rebuilding of Germany and Japan after WWII. The losses from skirmishes in Iraq are even comparable to policing actions in Germany after WWII and situations in some unstable Third World Countries.

In short we are moving ahead. Our military is anything but stretched to the breaking point. Look how short the tours in Iraq are. In WWII we did not rotate units out of the European or South Pacific Theatres. Unless we have all of our ground forces deployed 100% of the time they are not being fully utilized.

I do not wish to seem as though I am making light of the challenges that our brave men and women in uniform are facing so I want to make the point clear: we are facing grave challenges but due to the character of those in uniform and those supporting them at home we can overcome them all. What we need is the same steel being displayed in Iraq to be matched by determination at home.

We are losing the war on the Frontlines of America. Our enemies have opened the dreaded second front on us and it is on our own soil that they attack us. Our media, liberals in congress, and idiots everywhere are endangering our lives and our way of life.

Let us not mince words as many are in the habit of doing... such people are traitors to our proud country.