Merry Christmas

Good news for the season from Reuters.

U.S. forces said on Saturday they had killed the Taliban's military chief in southern Afghanistan, who had close links to Osama bin Laden and was heir to the rebel leadership.

See you in Hell, you bastard.

"Mullah Osmani is the highest ranking Taliban leader that we've ever killed," he said. "His death is very significant and will hit the Taliban's operations."

Chalk up one more villain blown off the face of this earth. I remain unconvinced, however, that his death will impact the Taliban in any significant way for very long. If our enemies are anything they are resourceful and flexible. They will adapt before long.
Of course, according to the Taliban the guy isn't even dead...

The Taliban said Osmani, anointed by the group's leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, as his heir in 2001, was alive.
"We strongly deny this. He is not present in the area where American forces are claiming to have killed him," commander Mullah Hayat Khan told Reuters by telephone.

In other words, they haven't recovered a body? Hmm. Well let's look at the way in which we annihilated Osmani.

Osmani and two other guerillas were killed in an air strike on their car on an isolated desert road on Tuesday, spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition force, Colonel Tom Collins, said in Kabul.

Airstrike means ordnance. Ordnance means no remains. End of story. The U.S. military elaborates on the point.

Collins said Osmani's car was destroyed in the attack in Helmand and the U.S. coalition had taken four days to check intelligence and other sources to confirm his identity.
"We're sure that we killed Osmani," he said. "It's a big loss for the Taliban. But the Taliban is also fairly adaptive. There is no doubt that they will put somebody else in that position and we will go after that person too," he said.

Good enough for me. Another one bites the dust.

Not getting the point

Christian Science Monitor brings us this.

Expanding the size of US armed forces could be an expensive and lengthy task - in essence, a redoubling of the national effort to grapple with the challenge posed by Islamic extremism.
The move would be irrelevant in the Iraq war, say some critics, because by the time more troops are recruited, trained, and deployed, the conflict there will probably be set in its course.
But in calling for such an increase, President Bush said the US military must be positioned to deal with terrorists for a generation to come.

I never think more military is a bad thing, being a militant nationalist conservative myself. However, I don't think increasing troops is really what we need. What good is an extra garrison of troops going to do us if they still have a seven step Rules of Engagement code at military checkpoints and a ban on going after al-Sadr? Then we simply have more men over there in danger because the politicians are rendering their warrior spirit impotent.

Instead, Bush billed a larger US military as essential for the security of today's children and their children.

That is patently true. Now we simply have to change our doctrine and subordinate the will of the Iraqi government to our own military strategy. We have to win before they can govern anything at all.

Democrats remain wary, however, that Bush's call for a larger military is a means to make more politically palatable a separate decision to increase troop strength in Iraq. That is a move many of them oppose.
"More troops would get us in deeper and is a military response to a political problem," said Sen. Carl Levin (D) of Michigan, incoming Senate Armed Services chairman, in a statement.

The Dems just don't understand a damn thing. We're already in deep, and the reason we have political problems, is because of POLITICIANS like Senator Levin looking over our soldiers' shoulders. They are trained to be vote whores, not to conquer.

Why is he still breathing?

CNN blows our mind. Can you imagine a college professor doing such a thing?

A Florida professor admitted Tuesday he had been a Cuban spy for nearly 30 years, and his wife -- also a professor -- admitted she knew of his conduct, authorities said.

That should be the end of discussion. Death by firing squad for spies and traitors. Throw his wife in jail for being an accomplice to espionage.

But of course, where are our balls? Nowhere to be found it seems.

The couple entered their pleas as part of a deal to avoid a jury trial on previous charges of being Cuban agents who failed to register with the U.S. government, the Miami Herald reported Tuesday.
So not only are we not going to execute the traitor, but we're pleaing him down to a lesser sentance. Now he faces a mere five years? Wait, wait, wait! Stand by! Ironic statement incoming!

In Washington, Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein said the plea "demonstrates our firm commitment to protect our country and our citizens against the agents of foreign powers."

Yes! And that demonstration says the following: Spies beware! Here there be minor prison sentances! Dare to enact espionage on our great country, and you shall be forced to wait five years until you may return to your native country.

Gates sworn in

And everyone talks of a new direction.

I couldn't be more in agreement. So far, the basic building blocks seem to be there. The man knows what a dirty word retreat is, and seems to have his head in a realistic place as concerns the consequences of such cowardice.

What concerns me, however, is whether or not he has the balls to execute this war like a war, and not a police action. Are we going to aggressively go after these desert rats or are we simply going to use the Vietnamesque tactic of containment and defensive, reactionary fighting. As far as Robert Gates is concerned, he hasn't let on one way or the other. With all his talk of change, there hasn't been a very concrete definition of what that's going to be.

Further, the word from Tony Snow is that the White House will not be releasing any sort of new plan until the new year. So will it indeed be a new plan, or the same strategy repackaged complete with stacks of bullshit recommendations passed forth by the Iraq Study Group?

What we need is a good old-fashioned, unadulterated American show of power. Our military functions best as a lean, fit fighting machine. We're adaptable, highly specialized in a variety of tasks and able to tackle any situation using the best technology on earth. What were are not is a wall designed to keep out the hun. If we are to win, we must kill. Men who oppose our establishment of Iraq's government must be brought immediately to the table or they must die. If you are not with us, you are against us. More importantly, if we do not win, we lose.

Though any sort of realistic, workable solution to the Iraq problem wil be crippled by constant media coverage and moral grandstanding.

Mushroon clouds a'bloomin'

This from CSM.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasts that world powers are getting weak knees about stopping his country's nuclear program.
Is the fiery leader right?

Unfortunately, probably so.

The United Nations Security Council is considering a watered-down resolution of sanctions aimed at punishing Iran for pursuing its uranium- enrichment program - a process that could lead to development of a nuclear weapon. But with the United States seemingly occupied with Iraq, and with Russia and China still balking at any action that would suggest "humiliation" of a valued trade partner, doubts are rising over how much the Europe-sponsored resolution will be worth.

Resolutions don't mean a goddamn thing and Iraq proved that. They're nothing but a symbolic and dismissive gesture of disapproval that inevitably results in a larger problem further down the road.

On a side note, Russia and China aren't trustworthy anyway. Russia is led by a criminal and China smiles at us through dragon teeth.

Noting that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries announced over the weekend their interest in developing a cooperative nuclear-energy program, former Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross said, "Who is that message for? Let me tell you, it's not for Iran. It was for us."
Ambassador Ross, now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, also said at an event Tuesday that the Saudis are telling the US, "Stop them - or that [nuclear power] is the way we go, too."

That's a comforting thought. The most backwards cultures in the world (yes I said it) arming themselves with the most destructive weapons humanity has ever devised. I'm starting to get heartburn over here.

Others note that while the US goes along with diplomatic efforts to curtail Iran's nuclear progress, President Bush continues to insist that "no options are off the table" in terms of guaranteeing that Iran never develops the bomb. They speculate that if Iran continues its nuclear march, the US could take military action to at least seriously damage its program before the end of Mr. Bush's term, claiming it had favored diplomatic action until the risk dictated another course.

I don't much care for Bush, but I have to admit I find such strong words comforting. Let's hope he lives up to it. No doubt the U.N. will stand on the sidelines and wag their reproachful fingers at us. The U.N. is the most utterly useless and destructive bureaucratic body in existence today. Period. Their negligence borders on the criminal.

Why bother?

MSNBC carries this from Tehran:

Iran will only hold direct talks with the United States on Iraq if Washington announces plans to pull its troops out, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Saturday.
Mottaki was responding to this week’s Iraq Study Group report, which recommended Washington should directly engage with Iran and Syria to try to stabilize Iraq.

Color me unmoved. The Iraq Study Group is a document that offers fluffy suggestions and tells us what we already know. A genuine waste of our time. Iran is using political opportunism to advance an agenda.

An agenda, mind you, to get us out of Iraq. I wonder why they want us out? Can anyone say power vacuum?

Washington blames Iran and Syria for stirring up conflict in Iraq nearly four years after the U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein.
“The biggest help Iran can make is to stop what they’re doing in Iraq right now,” a senior U.S. military official, who did not want to be named, told Reuters.

Exactly, which is why talking is also a waste of time. Unfortunately, much else isn't much an option, as our military is stretched perilously thin. If only the UN was worth a damn, they could have this crisis resolved in a matter of months.

Bomb the nuclear labs into the stone age. Better yet, let Israel do it. They know how to get a job done.

We live in an age in which we are trying to negotiate with a psycopathic Hitler wannabe. What could he possibly have to offer us if we were to withdraw? Mahmoud would have the upper hand and we'd be in no position to negotiate anything. Meanwhile he'd unfurl his wings and spread his oppressive regime into Iraq and turn it into another Syria. Sounds appealing yes?

We need to step on this roach fast.

This is why we need unions!

And the subject line is sarcasm.

This from Fox News.

About 1,000 nonunion workers, mostly Hispanics upset with the recent firing of immigrants for allegedly providing false documents, walked off their jobs at a Smithfield Foods Inc. slaughtering plant, a union spokeswoman said.

Good. Non-union. Fire them too. Then go down to the local unemployment offices and give the jobs to people who want to work.

About 600 workers were found to have unverifiable information. The company fired about 75 people for providing false information, he said.

And they should have been arrested to boot.

Smithfield spokesman Dennis Pittman said the company was only complying with a request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement "This walkout — which apparently was instigated by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union — is totally unjustified," Pittman said. "If Smithfield were to do what the union is calling for, we would be breaking federal law by knowingly employing undocumented workers. The union should stop trying to pressure Smithfield to break the law."

Agreed. Rule of law must be maintained. If you are not properly documented, no job. Comprende? You go through the proper channels, or you simply do not work. End of story, turn out the lights.

And by the way...if all the able bodied people on welfare would get a damn job, we wouldn't have a need to hire those who stream across the border and rape our nation by violating its laws. Think about that.

There's something about Gates

CNN gushes over him.

President Bush's nomination of Robert Gates as defense secretary headed to the full Senate Wednesday for approval, a day after it sailed through the Armed Services Committee.
Gates was confirmed by the committee 24-0.

Wow. Why migh this be?

When asked by Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, incoming chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, if he thought the U.S. was winning the war, Gates replied, "No, sir."

Oh. Yes I imagine Levin might have liked that answer. The funny thing now is that Iraq now has the Democrats' name on it, and they also have to take a bite of the sandwich if it's later found to contain shit.

Later, he clarified his remark, saying the United States wasn't losing either and that his comment pertained to Iraq as a whole, not just as a military endeavor.
"Our military forces win the battles that they fight. Our soldiers have done an incredible job in Iraq, and I'm not aware of a single battle that they have lost," he said.

If you are not winning, you are losing. There is no third direction. We are not losing militarily whatsoever. As Gates points out, we've never given ground to those bastards. What we are losing is our nerve as a public, but that's a rant found elsewhere.

Iran concerns Gates because "their capacity to potentially close off the Persian Gulf to all exports of oil, their potential to unleash a significant wave of terror -- in the Middle East and in Europe and even here in this country -- is very real," he said.
But, the nominee said, while the Islamic republic is working against U.S. interests, "I think they could do a lot more to hurt our effort in Iraq."

Every time I start to get on the same page with this guy, he goes and craps out a stupid comment like that. Iran could be doing worse, so why bother with them? Wake up Gates! Read some of Churchill's letters! The same goes for our entire government, that Islamofascist government is invested in our failure and demise, and the extinction of the Jews. Accept the fact that we must go for their jugular in some way very soon.

"Alleged"

Fox News carries this report.

Moroccan police have arrested a Muslim prayer leader who is suspected of recruiting young men to be suicide bombers in the insurgency in Iraq, a newspaper reported Wednesday.

Mmm. How suprising. What's the evidence?

Abdelilah preached at a mosque in Mezouak, a vast slum on the city's outskirts, exhorting Moroccans to "fight the American-Zionist occupation in Iraq," the newspaper quoted police as saying.
Two young men who attended the mosque carried out suicide bombings in Baquba, Iraq, last month, and a further five Moroccans linked to the mosque are believed to have joined the Iraq insurgency, the daily said.

Sounds to me like ther'e nothing "alleged" or "suspected". Lock, stock, the freaking lot. Send him to Cuba so we can shake him down, and find out if he was acting alone.

As for everyone crying that the Guantanamo detainees deserve trial, I couldn't agree more. Pump them for information, try them, and when we find them guilty, execute them so we can hurry up and piss on their graves.

As if to accentuate my thoughts, the television over my shoulder just aired a video of a terrorist who was bring interviewed. The subject? His admitted practice of beheading those he considered infidels. He remarked that he despised cowards, especially those who appear too nervous as they kneel waiting for the sword to take off their head.

What is that if not genocide?

Well said

Misha over at Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler posted this. It doesn't get any more "blood and guts" than that. Well said.

Torture/Coercive Techniques

A friend of mind recently asked me to enumerate what acts in Guantanamo I considered torture. The answer is simple: so far none of them.

Waterboarding? That's the worst people can bring up. It's essentially simulated drowning for the participant in a controlled environment. The question is, who are we using it on? US citizens? Nope. Foreign nationals? Negative. The upper brass of our detainess who we believe are holding critical information and are refusing to play ball? Check. I frankly couldn't give a damn if some uncooperative little shit gets the life scared out of him if the information breaks up cells and saves lives. So far, every person waterboarded has yielded such information.

Sleep deprivation/sonic assault/temperature manipulation/forced standing et al: don' make me laugh.

What DO I consider torture?

-Savage beating
-Burning
-Cutting
-Forcefeeding
-Sexual assault
-Mutilation of any kind
-Humiliating treatment that you would not subject your dog to.
-Bone breaking
-Disfigurment
-Flagellation
-Anything that looks like it belongs in a Clive Barker film

This isn't an exhaustive list, but you can see how I'm categorizing things. Fill in the blanks.

Why we fight

This from Fox News:

British authorities are tracking almost 30 terrorist plots involving 1,600 individuals, the head of Britain's MI5 spy agency said, adding that many of the suspects are homegrown British terrorists plotting homicide attacks.

And I'm sure the Brits have no qualms about invading the "privacy" of these militant loonies in order to stop their carnage.

"It is the youth who are being actively targeted, groomed, radicalized and set on a path that frighteningly quickly could end in their involvement in mass murder of their fellow U.K. citizens," Manningham-Buller said. "Young teenagers are being groomed to be suicide bombers.
"Today we see the use of homemade improvised explosive devices, but I suggest tomorrow's threat will include the use of chemicals, bacteriological agents, radioactive materials and even nuclear technology," she added.

So given this information, what, can we surmise, is the extent of the terrorist threat in the United States? After all, we have a gaping hole in our border that our government doesn't seem to give a shit about. With everyone crocking about "alarmism" in our nation, this news story should serve as a firm, open-palmed slap in the face.

The Visigoths are here, and they want to burn Rome to the ground.

New Defense Secretary

Let's hope this guy has more balls than Rumsfeld.

I don't know what to make of him. The Christian Science Monitor says the following about him:

And in this case, a change in style might result in a change in substance. Skilled at building consensus, a realist who adapts to conditions as he finds them, Mr. Gates might find it easier to urge a change in course in Iraq than did Donald Rumsfeld - who was a chief architect of the administration's Iraq policies, after all.

Vague.

Next year Democrats are likely to push legislation calling for a yet-unspecified troop withdrawal from Iraq. They may add bills calling for more money for veterans and special forces, and for the repair of military equipment damaged in Iraq fighting.

Why is it that the Democrats always seem to try and shore up their hawk resume by working for veteran's benefits? They support the troops so long as we never have to use them to bloody the nose of our enemies.

Look all's I'm saying is that the Dems seem to like this guy, and that worries me. Let's face it, the modern Democratic party is NOT centrist. It is led by and largely made up of the far left. Leftists are known to be squeamish about using any sort of military action (see Vietnam, Mogadishu) and this adorable sort of naiivete is dangerous.

Listen not to what they say, but watch what they do.

"Peace through strength"

The Christian Science Monitor carries this one.

In a new thread to the North Korean bomb saga, arguments over Japan's nuclear ambitions are becoming the focus as prominent politicians from the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) continue to raise the issue.

Any objections yet? I thought not. On we go.

Security experts say that nukes would be of little or no benefit to Tokyo - neither politically nor in military terms - and that the recent statements are mostly bluster. Yet the continuing, very public discussions underscore how regional security threats are deepening the anxiety among Japan's conservative political set.
"Alarmist views have been continually wrong in the past and they are wrong again now," says Shunji Taoka, a defense writer and former professor at Tsukuba University.

Why is it that the fruitcakes in academia seem to label every threat "alarmist"? The threat posed by terrorists and wide-opened borders? Alarmism. They haven't the stomach nor the substance to prepare for war, and it is this preparation that is the surest road to peace. You keep the other dogs from biting you by ensuring you have the sharpest teeth.

"Nuclear deterrence will not work against an irrational or desperate opponent" and would be unlikely to prevent the desperate last acts of a North Korea on the brink of collapse, says Taoka.

Neither will screaming and running to the UN for shelter. And I'm not entirely convinced that painting a giant red target on Kim Jong-Il's palaces wouldn't grab his attention. If anything, he's self-interested.

Some victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still bear physical scars, and the moral implications of the US decision to use nuclear weapons haunt a generation.

Then I'm sure they will agree, it would have been to their advantage to have nukes of their own at the time. Too harsh? *shrugs*

While we're at it, let's remove the restrictions on Japan's military. With China rising in power, Russia hiding their cards up their sleeves and North Korea's leader showing his ass, Japan seems to be our best friend over there.

He got off easy

CNN carries this article proclaiming the coming demise of Saddam Hussein.

This particular death sentance comes as a result of our friend's heavy-handedness with some folks who tried to kill him many years ago. So now the butcher gets his appeals process, and afterwards we get to lynch the bastard right?

Not quite.

Hussein is also in the middle of another trial involving the 1988 Anfal campaign, the government offensive in the country's Kurdish region. Hussein is charged in that case with genocide.

Which means we have to try him again to get another death sentance so we can hang him twice. Just you watch, my prediction is that he'll die in prison before the bureacracy gets around to stringing him up, much like Milosevic.

Oooh, maybe we can make the execution a live pay-per-view event, and use the proceeds to buy humvees with better armor so our guys don't get their legs blown off by IEDs? It would be ironic yeah?