Posted 2/18/2003 09:20:00 AM by Ocean Guy
European Socailism allied with radical Islam
Dennis Prager explains how the left is finding itself allied with Radical Islam.

It is therefore essential that Americans understand the nature of the rift between America and Western Europe (not Eastern Europe, which thanks to its suffering under Communist evil, understands evil and values America) -- a rift that will only widen unless one adopts the values of the other. For at this moment, there are two civilizational wars taking place: Islamist hostility to Western liberty and European hostility to American values.

He argues that Europe's belief in socialism and their preference for doing away with National Identities has put them in conflict with American Ideals and values. And, because America is the "chief obstacle" both to the spread of Socialism and the spread of Radical Islam, the Europeans, in general and the left in particular, finds itself in a comfortable partnership with the likes of Osama bin Laden.
The arguement over action in Iraq is just the current issue, our differences with Western Europe continue to grow...

Posted 2/12/2003 08:49:00 AM by Ocean Guy
The Radical Muslim Cleric Importation Plan

Do you know anything about an R Visa?

The R visa program, created by Congress in 1990, gives visas to thousands of foreigners to fill alleged domestic shortages among ministries, nunneries, and other religious professionals. In 1998, some 11,000 foreigners received such visas. According to a 1999 General Accounting Office report, federal investigators have discovered R visa fraud rings involving churches and other religious institutions based in Colombia, Fiji, and Russia.

The mastermind of the 1993 WorldTradeCenter bombing, Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, had an R visa. So did four Palestinian men who worked for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and the Islamic Association for Palestine-both Muslim charities that the State Department has linked to the terrorist organization Hamas.

Michelle Malkin reports on at least 2000 individuals with R Visas, who have been admitted to the country fraudulently and with minimal, if any, security. Where are they? No one knows... Is anyone doing anything about it? Is this part of the reason we are in an elevated terror alert status?

It makes me want to scream.

Posted 2/06/2003 11:02:00 AM by Ocean Guy
The Six-Day War changed American perspectives on the Arab-Israeli conflict. After that Jewish victory, Israel, for the first time was perceived as the stronger party. Unfortunately, for many, many Americans, and most Europeans, being stronger equates to being wrong and being a bully, especially in armed conflict. By the logic of enlightened folk the palestinians must be good because they are suffering. Suffering people are innocent and good. Strong people are oppressive and bad. But things aren't quite so simple...
For an interesting insight into the Arab-Israeli problem from someone who has lived Israel's modern history, read this Article by Dr. Matania Ginosar: The British Called me a Terrorist:

When my father was seventeen the British Government issued the Balfour Declaration giving their support to the creation of a Jewish State on the TWO SIDES OF THE JORDAN RIVER (as it was in biblical times). After the British conquered the Middle East in 1918, and promised the Jews to help them create a state on the two sides of the Jordan, my father and many of his friends moved to Israel to build the new state. In 1922 Churchill created Trans Jordan and gave three quarters of the land promised to be Israel to the Arabs. The smaller portion, ALL THE LAND BETWEEN THE JORDAN AND THE SEA was to be a TEMPORARY British Mandate under the League of Nation DEDICATED TO THE CREATION THE STATE OF ISRAEL in that full area.

My older brother, my sister, and I were raised to continue our hope for an Israel on both sides of the Jordan, and to fight to achieve that goal. We did not accept the duplicity of the British, cutting down our country to its minimum size. You may say it was an unrealistic dream, but that was part of our soul, an integral part of who we were. And we fought for it, as many other Israelis did. The Left and the Hagana accepted the shrinking of Israel, the Right, and the Irgun and Lechi undergrounds did not. We were still hoping.

As the UN divided Israel in 1947 to an Arab and Israeli portion, our hearts were cut again. It was a severe blow to our dreams, but we wanted a Jewish State to accept the millions of wondering, stateless Jews; and eventually most Israelis, including my father, my brother, my sister, and I, accepted that sad reality. I accepted this reality despite the Arabs killing a quarter of my elementary and highschool friends during the war of 1947-48 that they imposed on us, despite them killing three of my kibbutz friends, out of forty members, in "peace time" after the 1948 war. We wanted bygones to be bygones. ...read it all.

Posted 2/05/2003 10:00:00 AM by Ocean Guy
Today's column by Thomas Friedman is one I agree with.

The unstated logic is that the real threat to open societies today comes from all the angry young men and women being produced by the misgovernance, backwardness and extremism emanating from that [Arab] part of the world. And if that anger results in another 9/11 it will mean the end of the open society as we know it, and globalization as we know it.

That is why helping the Arab-Muslim world get onto a different course is the only meaningful response to 9/11. But it is a long-term, difficult, risky, costly, audacious project. It is one that will require a real nation-building commitment, and a real effort to stabilize the region by simultaneously promoting a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Is the Bush team up for all that? Is the nation up for all that? I'm not sure.

The Bush team better be up for that because Friedman is also right that most Americans aren't really convinced that war with Iraq is absolutely necessary. They certainly need to do a much better job of explaining to us what we're fighting and standing for and why it's the right and moral thing to do. Too many Americans agree with our European "friends" and think that the US is acting like a bully.

The administration has done a poor job of selling us on the need for unilateral action. Maybe it's because they don't believe that any action will be unilateral, but you wouldn't know it from the rhetoric.

Even those of us who believe that fighting Iraq, replacing Saddam and helping them towards democracy is the right thing to do are questioning the White House. Both the case they are making and the outcome they are seeking are unclear. Maybe this morning's presentation by Colin Powell to the Security Council will help to clarify things, but until the case for war is made we should expect and even demand more answers from the government.

My guess is that a real coalition will be involved in any action in Iraq. The public rhetoric is part of the diplomatic process with our friends in Europe and the Middle East. But Friedman is right:

...Therefore it's time for the president to level with the American people about what will be required to make this war a success. Because ultimately it is the support of the American people — not the U.N., not France, not Poland — that will determine whether we have the means to see it through.

Posted 1/24/2003 09:13:00 AM by Ocean Guy
War in Iraq

I'm not sure if I support unilateral war with Iraq or not... BUT, I am sure that the very real threat of war, including the deployment, preparations, and rhetoric coming from the US, is an essential part of the diplomacy that's ongoing. Without the threat of violent conflict, there is no chance to affect Saddam's behavior. It's a shame some of our Allies cannot understand that. Can you say Paris and Berlin?

Most appalling about German and French behavior and rhetoric is that they appear to have more trust and faith in a Saddam led Iraq than they have in a George Bush led USA. Though, probably it is more likely is that France and Germany are simply acting like petulant, spoiled teenagers, more intent on asserting their independence than in acting in their own best interest. In the end they will come to dinner, but when they do they should be seated at the kids' table.

Anti-war activists do make some valid points in regard to focus on Iraq. Specifically, North Korea and Pakistan are at least as likely to be sources of WMD to terrorists as is Iraq. AlQueda and Hezbollah are more immediate threats to the US than is Iraq. Why then is the President apparently fixated on Saddam Hussein? I wish the administration was doing a better job in explaining it. If they are all related, as I believe they are, then make the case. Too much effort, lately, has been put on explaining things via the language of UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Yes, the President delivered a masterful speech to the UN to help pass the resolution. But he and his administration are NOT following it up by making a good case for action to the public. Too many people are assuming that it is necessary to find the proverbial Smoking Gun to justify any action. There is a bigger and better case to be made, but no one is presenting it. Is it just too difficult to explain? Does the Administration think we won't be able to understand it? Do all arguments necessarily need to be reduced to sound bites? Does any of it matter?

I think it matters, and I'd like to see a more convincing argument. But until then, they Have to make the THREAT of violence very real if there is any hope for a non-violent resolution.