Middle East Decision Time?

"Yesterday I had an exchange with someone, formerly associated with an American intelligence agency, who claims to be knowledgable about the Middle East. I offered the following view on the Middle East, to which he later responded: Quite naturally the [US] has important interests in the Arab world, especially in terms of a commitment to protect certain Arab princes in the Gulf region, and to protect 'democracy' in Iraq. At the same time we wish to prevent a second holocaust--a second mass extermination of Jews. Seen by many to be an ally and friend to the Arabs, the [US] is an ally and friend to Israel as well. This is a very uncomfortable position for America, because the conflict between Israel and the Arabs appears to be non-negotiable (especially with the insertion of Islamism into the conflict). We are thus confronted with a dilemma. Either Israel will survive and Islamic power will be broken for centuries to come, or Israel will be destroyed and Europe will come under the same pressure Israel now feels. ... For peace to come about in the Middle East, it is not enough that the Israelis show sympathy for the plight of the Arbas. This is what we would all like to see. But what of Arab sympathy for the plight of the Jews? But no one is sufficently 'insensitive' as to insist on this. ... If Israel is considered an outpost of the West, can the Arabs agree upon a border with Israel? Or must we accept the destruction of Israel? Here the bitter experiences of India, alongside those of Israel, suggest that peace with Islam is always and forever problematic. Do we imagine there is no lesson to be found in the Islamic invasions of the Roman Empire, Europe and India. We are told to be sympathetic to the Islamists, to the plight of the Arabs. What about sympathy for Christians and Jews? ... The ultimate target of the hateful rhetoric in the Middle East is America and not Israel. It is capitalism and the West", JR Nyquist at Financial Sense, 4 June 2010, link:

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2010/0604.html.

"What do the following have in common: the piling on Israel after the botched interception of the Hamas relief flotilla, the Chinese military telling the US secretary of defense that he was not welcome in Beijing, and the declaration by Nick Clegg--now deputy prime minister of Great Britain--that his country's special relationship with America is over? Answer: The Obama adminstration has managed to convince most countries around the world that we are worth little as friends and even less as enemies. ... Last week, Israel walked into a trap set by a flotilla of Hamas sypathizers and what Lenin used to call useful idiots. Israeli commandos who were being attacked by burly men trying to throw them overboard or beat them senseless killed a bunch of people whom they would rather not have killed. ... The Israelis have a right to blockade Gaza, from which they withdrew only to soak up several thousand rockets in return, and they did what they could to get the ships to send supplies into Gaza through their ports. Until Vice President Jow Biden plucked up the courage to acknowledge on 'Charlie Rose' that the Israelis are at war with Hamas and have the right to prevent arms from entering Gaza, the Israelis could have been foregiven for thinking that we would hang them out to dry. ... The folly here is to think that leaving the Israelis open to these kinds of diplomatic attacks will buy good will in a Middle East that gets its opinions from Al Jazeera and a venomous media that routinely prints outratgeous lies and hate literature that echoes Nazi Germany. That part of the world, as Osama bin Laden once correctly observed, prefers a strong horse to a weak horse. ... When did the Israelis withdraw from Gaza? When they had a president in the White House upon whom they knew they could count. If, as is the case now, Israel is alone and desperate, is it more or less likely to conclude it has no choice but to attack Iran's nuclear facilities... What precisely have we gained from reaching out to the Syrian government", Eliot Cohen at the WSJ, 7 June 2010, link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704875604575280462094012870.html.

Quoted without comment.

It may be decision time for the US: we side with Israel or the Arabs. We'll see.

Taksei on NASA

"What speaks the most to me, becasue I once ran an endless 21-kilometer half-marathon, is that the Orion Nebula is 24 light years across and 1,344 +- 20 light years distant. ... These are numbers that can sit honorably at the same table and have a drink or two with the [US'] national debt, currently estimated at $115 trillion. Tying the Orion Nebula and Obama Nation together is also the vast canyon of dust that the latter is being transformed into under much hopeychangey hot gas. ... The nebulous hot gas bullets were piercing the clouds of credulity already in August of 2008, when Presidential candidate Barack Obama during a campaign rally with NASA workers criticized thre Bush Administration for inadequate support of NASA and promised to change that (more here). ... We do not know to what extent the BHO administration has tackled and contained this idiocy. On the other hand, we do know that NASA now has a black chief and a female deputy chief, so at least we started out with what really matters: racial and gender justice. ... The funds are simply not there when you have to provide medical insurance to several million citizens of Mexico, to continue the wealth transfer mirage of Fannie 'n' Freddy and to offer free college education for every possible moron with high self-esteem and low competence at the multiplication table", Takuan Seiyo at Gates of Vienna, 25 April 2010, link:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/04/vast-canyon-of-gas-and-dust-inshallah.html.

Here here Taksei. Your superior Wharton ways are coming through. I agree. The US pays Mexico tens of billions annually in "war reparations". Well Rev. Al., why don't you demand this stop and direct the reparations to your people.

UBS's New Savior

"Oswald J. Grubel gave a dazzling performance as head of Credit Swiss from 2004 to 2007, doubling the Swiss bank's profit and share price. ... The CEO has made no progress, however, on the bank's most pressing problem: withdrawals by wealthy clients, who have removed $214 billion over the past seven quarters. The outflow increased in the fourth quarter and will probably continue, analysts say, as uncertainty persists about the outcome of US efforts to investiagte alleged tax evasion by UBS clients. ... Grubel, known as 'Ossie,' says he is counting on the return to profitability to help make UBS 'a trusted bank again. ... UBS's tax dispute with the US will only complicate Grubel's task. ... The Swiss adminstrative court muddled the picture last month by blocking the government from passing some of the data to US authorities; judges ruled that the failure to file certain IRS forms, a key part of the UBS settlement, wasn't considered fraud in Switzerland", Elena Logutenova at Businessweek, 22 February 2010, link:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_08/b4167026005656.htm.

If UBS doesn't want to serve its clients by keeping their data from the IRS, it will lose them. Eventually these people will realize when push comes to shove, banks and the authorities will cooperate. When that happens, these people will leave the banking system and buy gold.

Iceland Rocks!

"Icelanders roundly rejected a deal to repay the UK and the Netherlands E3.9 billion ($5.3 billion) lost in the collapse of an Icelandic Internet bank, complicated the island's bid to access badly needed international aid funding and normalize its relations with the rest of the world. ... It was Iceland's first plebecite since the island's independence from Denmark in 1944. ... The government of Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir has labored for the better part of a year to get a bill through a hesitant parliament, arguing that Iceland desperately needs money from an International Monetary Fund-led bailout program. ... After those talks ended Froday with no resolution, Ms. Sigurdardottir even encouraged citizens not the vote, hoping to blunt the referendum's effect with low turnout. ... A deal agreed by Iceland's parliament in December, under which Iceland would pay back the money over 15 years but wouldn't have to make payments for the first seven, was vetoed by the island's president, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson. In a rare display of power from a normally ceremonial post, he cited mass dissatisfaction for his veto, which led to the referndum. ... Many Icelanders are angry at the giant burden placed on them to clean up a mess widely seen as the fault of greedy, high-flying bankers", my emphasis, Charles Forelle at the WSJ, 8 March 2010, link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703391004575106452707894556.html.

Good show Iceland. Will Iceland's government ignore the will of 93% of Iceland's voters? What percentage of Americans would rather see our banksters hung than bailed out? Why does Iceland need IMF aid? Is Iceland AIG, passing through $13 billion to the Vampire Squid? If the UK and the Netherlands don't like Iceland's vote, let them invade or shut up.

Wilson's Continuing Failure

"'America is losing the Free World,' was the arresting headline over the Financial Times column by Gideon Rachman. His Thesis: 'The largest democracies of South America, the Middle East and Asia--South Africa, Turkey, India--are all moving out of America's orbit. (T)he assumption that the democracies would stick together is proving unfounded.' ... The ruling parties in all four were democratically elected. Yet, in all four, democratic solidarity is being trumped by an older solidarity--of Third World people of color against a 'white, rich Western world.' ... What makes this frightening,' says [Geoffrey] Wheatcroft, 'is that many American politicians and commentators ... have yet to grasp this reality. Such ignorance is evident in the bizarre notion--current even before George W. Bush took the oath of office--that America not only can and should spread democracy, but that this would be in the American national interest. Why did anyone think this?' ... What, then, is the rationale for the National Endowment for Democracy to continue tax dollars to promote such elections? ... When colonialism ended in East Africa, Indians were massacred. The Chinese suffered a horrible pogrom in Indonesia in 1965, when the dictator Sukarno fell--and another when Sukarto fell. Picked clean, two-thirds of the 250,000 whites in Rhodesia when Robert Mugabe took powwer are gone. ... If racial and religious bonds and ancient animosities against the West trump any democratic solidarity with the West, of what benefit to America is democracy in the Third World? ... Is democratism our salvation--or an ideology of Western suicide?", Pat Buchanan at Vdare, 7 January 2010, link:

http://vdare.com/buchanan/100107_democratization.htm.

Hitler was elected too. So? Consider this article's implications for American and European immigration policies.

Blackwater's Black Hats-2

"The scandal is that the [DOJ's] case against five former security guards for the military contractor unravelled late last week in what appears to be another instance of gross prosecutorial misconduct, as abusive Justice lawyers went after an unsympathetic political target. ... Because of prior contact with the compelled statements, the [DOJ's] entire criminal division had recused itself from the case, which was handed over to national-security prosecutors and later to Assistant US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Kenneth Kohl. ... The judge goes on to say that Justice's 'inconsistent, extraordinary explanations' for its conduct 'smack of post hoc rationalization and are simply implusible,' and ultimately 'lacking in credibility.' ... Something is rotten in the culture of Justice, leading ambitious government crusaders to think they can get away with flouting due process when the political winds are blowing hot", WSJ editorial, 4 January 2010: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704065404574636170633783890.html.

The DOJ prosecutors must have thought they were operating under Iraqi criminal procedure. They apparently didn't realize they are still in the US. This case stank.

UBS Deal Collapses?

"A Swiss court ruled Friday that Swiss authorities may not disclose the account details of a wealthy American who used UBS's private bank to evade American taxes. The ruling, by the Swiss federal administrative court, threatens to open fresh legal challenges from American prosecutors of the Swiss banking giant UBS in what has become a protracted dispute between the two countries. It threatens to topple an agreement reached last August between Switzerland and the [DOJ] that requires Swiss tax authorities to disclose to the [IRS] the names of 4,450 American clients of UBS suspected of evading [US] taxes. ... Should the suit be revived, it could also jeopardize a separate deal last February in which UBS averted indictment by agreeing to pay $780 million to the [US] government and admitting criminal wrongdoing in the offshore private banking services it sold to wealthy Americans. ... In a statement, the IRS said Friday that 'We have every expectation that the Swiss government will continue to honor the terms of the agreement.' ... Friday's ruling is the second by a Swiss court to challenge the disclosure of client names. On Thursday, Swiss regulators said they would appeal a separate ruling by a Swiss court that said the Swiss regulators broke secrecy laws when they authorized UBS to hand over the names of 255 clients as part of the $780 million deal last February. The Swiss regulatory agency, Finma, said Thursday that it handed over the names because the possibility of an indictment of UBS 'would have threatened its existence'," Lynnley Browning (LB) at the NYT, 23 January 2010, link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/business/23tax.html.

"The Swiss government on Wednesday backed off an agreement with the [US] that required it to hand over the names of wealthy American clients of the Swiss bank UBS who were suspected of tax evasion. ... The Swiss cabinet said it might put the disclosure of the names up for approval before the Swiss parliament--but only if if received detailed information from the [IRS] on how many UBS clients had come forward under a voluntary disclosure program that ended in November. ... IRS officials said Wednesday that Switzerland needed to hew to the August deal. 'We expect the Swiss government ot continue to honor the terms of the agreement,' the agency said in a statement. The [DOJ] declined to comment. ... Kevin E. Packman, a tax lawyer at Holand & Knight in Miami, said that the Swiss courts 'have put UBS and, so some extent the Swiss government in an uncomfortable position. I suspect that if the courts don't cooperate with the government to find a solution, things are going to get really ugly for UBS", LB at the NYT, 28 January 2010, link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/business/global/28ubs.html.

The Swiss buckle to the IRS, when they wouldn't to Adolph Hitler. Wow. That's clout. The Swiss should have told the IRS, "Indict UBS. Fair enough. We'll indict Citigroup and raise you a Vampire Squid (VS). Your turn".

No problem. Invade Switzerland! Wait, even Hitler didn't do that. I have a better idea for the Swiss. Threaten to indict Citigroup and VS for violating Swiss banking laws. I'm sure if the Swiss regulators look, they'll find something.

June 1941, Again?

"Don't assume that Russia and America will be adversaries forever. Given the nature and the magnitude of the negativity marking the current stage of the American-Russian relations, the very thought of an alliance between the two countires looks outright absurd to many people. Regardless of the presence of seemingly insurmountable obstacles, American-Russian relations could offer a dramatic U-turn to a stunned world. Why? The answer to this question is both logical and simple: The spread of radical Islam thoughout the Muslim world and the quickly advancing Islamization of Europe could bring to life this unlikely and, according to many experts, even impossible scenario. ... The main problem from the Russian side is the hysterical anti-Americanism which has become the essence of Russian foreign policy. ... Maybe the most important among them is the negative image of the [US] created by totalitarian propaganda during the Soviet era. The image in question has been powerfully reinforced by the chaos and corruption that plagued Russia in place of the long-expected triumph of Democracy. ... How exactly would Russia benefit from a Vietnam-style American withdrawal from Afghanistan? In fact, an American abandonment of Afghanistan will trigger nothing short of a disaster for Russia. ... And let's not ignore a very important fact: Those Muslim neighbors share an almost 1,900-mile-long border with Afghanistan, which is as porous as the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. A Taliban victory would represent a huge boost to the activities of radical Islamists whose influence is growing in Central Asia. ... Given the magnitude of that danger, the changing demography of the country as a result of the reduction of the Russian component of the country's population provides grounds for a lot of sobering thoughts. Another important factor influencing the Russian policymakers is the proximity of the dramatically underpopulated Russian Far East to the overpopulated border areas of China. ... Of course, the old rule stipulating that 'it takes two to tango' is fully applicable to the area of foreign policy. Undoubtedly, within US corridors of power, Russia is regarded not only as a former enemy, but also as a current and future rival. American policymakers committed a huge mistake by not taking advantage of the positive attitude of Mr. Putin's government to the [US] in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. ... World public opinion supported the American action designed to terminate the ethnic cleansing of the Albanian community committed by the Milosevic regime. At the same time, however, the [US] did not protect the Serbian residents of Kosovo when they too became victims of ethnic cleansing. The inconsistency brought about a powerful negative reaction in Russia, a traditional Serbian ally and protector. What matters the most today, however, is that fact that America needs Russia to the same degree that Russia needs America. ... Well, looking back in time, those differences didn't prevent the emergence of the WWII-era American-Soviet alliance that buried all of Hitler's dreams and ambitions. ... The new relationship between the [US] and Russia would open the door for the creation of a brand-new system of international relations by including Europe, China, and India, all targeted and coverted by radical Islam, into the alliance. The emergence of such a structure would increase the chances of finding the correct approach to separting the majority of the world's Muslim community from the radical minority trying to establish world domination", my emphasis, Georgy Gourney (GG) at American Thinker, 26 December 2009, link:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/america_and_russia_rivals_unit.html.

GG got a PhD from the Moscow Institute of Foreign Relations. I oppose our antagonistic policy toward Russia. Our 1998 actions in Serbia did not ingratiate us to the Moslem world, but furthered the jihad. I believe Ralph Peters shortly after 9/11 suggested the: US, Russia, India, Israel and China form an alliance to fight Jihadism. Imagine had this happened, the US and Russia could have presented Iran an ultimatum, replete with pictures of Dresden and Berlin: stop all nuclear activities or this is your fate, that of Germany in 1945. My guess, within a few weeks, Iran's military will have slaughtered its Mullahs and given US-Russian teams free reign to look at anything in Iran. Instead, the US kisses Saudi Arabia's arse. The US should try to avoid a Moslem-controlled Russia with 6,500 "deliverables". I infintely prefer Putin's Russia to that. I disagree with GG as to what prevents the alliance: it's current US policy in Georgia, Poland, Serbia, etc. We offer Russia no "quid pro quo" for its support. I agree with GG, our Afghanistan war is Russia's fight. Look at a map. The US need not worry about "world public opinion". How many divisions has the world? I wonder what the alumni of Princeton's Wilson and Harvard's Kennedy Schools think of this? See my 24 and 28 August 2008 posts:

http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2008/08/ias-presidential-endorsement-vladimir.html http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2008/08/wither-russia.html.

Pax Obamicana

"History speaks of a Pax Romana, a Pax Britannica, and a Pax Americana--but no other namable eras of sustained peace, for the simple reason cited by Henry Kissinger: nothing maintains peace except hegemony and the balance of power. The balancing act always fails, though, as it did in Europe in 1914, and as it will in Central and South Asia precisely a century later. ... Those who wanted an end to US hegemony will get what they wished for. But they won't like it. ... The failure of the region's most populous state--in that case the Ottoman Empire, in this case Pakistan--makes shambles of the power balance, leaving initiative in the hands of irredentist radicals who threaten to tug their sponsors among the great powers along behind them. ... The US-sponsored frontier war amounts to Punjabis--traditonally the core of the country's military--killing Pashtuns. The default view of area defense analysts has been that army operations against the Taliban may turn into a Punjabi-Pashtun ethnic conflict. ... Pakistan is being ground between two millstones: the Afghan war and the global economic crisis. Half the country is illiterate, and half of Pakistanis live on less than US$1 a day. ... The credibility of secular government--with its promise of economic improvement--is threadbare. The alternative is an Islamist regime committed to confronting India over Kashmir and suppressing the Shi'ite minority that comprises 30% of Pakistan's population. ... Russia faces a slow demographic death, but it remains a great power in terms of military techonology: its surface-to-air-missile systems are as good as anything American [sic] can field, and its newest system, the as yet undeployed S-500, may be better. ... But Obama's budget cuts have hit military aviation hard, leaving its closest allies--including Israel and Australia--without a clear alternative to the aging F-16 force. Russia and India, meanwhile are developing a 'fifth generation' fighter, with some inputs from, France and Israel. There is widespread speculation that Russia's decision to cancel deliveries of its S-300 anti-missile system to Iran carried a price tag for the Israelis: order the latest Russian systems for their own use, and make available the entire package of Israeli avionics. ... In short, Washington appears to have driven its two closest allies in Asia--Isreal and India--into a technology alliance with Russia that may have enormous long-term consequences. ... China cannot sit by and allow India to encircle and eventually crush Pakistan--not because China has fundamental strategic interests in Pakistan, but because it cannot tolerate such a blemish to its credibility. The problem does not lie in Pakistan, but in the mutual capacity of India and China to destabilize each other. ... The implications of such an exercise in great-power politics [by the US] are in some respects ugly. ... The most dangerous undertaking of the Obama administration is not the petty failures of policy, such as the hapless effort to appease the Palestinians over West Bank settlements, or Pakistan over Kashmir. If America's technological leadership in fighter aircraft, surface-to-air missiles, and related technologies continues to erode, the [US]--like Britain in 1914--no longer will have the power and credibility to enforce an agreement among prospectively hostile players. America's self-sabotage in this regard is a unique act of abnegation in the history of world strategy", my emphasis, Spengler at Asia Times, 23 December 2009, link:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/KL24Ag01.html.

Yes Spengler. Now tell that double-Ivy League nitwit in the White House. Well Generals McCrystal and Petreus, what say you?

Israel, Iran, Russia and Obama

"Iran has blamed the [US] for Sunday's suicide bombing in Sistan-Balochistan province in which six Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps commanders were killed, as well as 37 other people. In an indirect way, the charge is true. ... The most dramatic response to Washington's abdication of power may be Israel's. ... A complex negotiation involving Russia and Israel is underway. ... The question is: what does Russia want from Israel in return for refraining from arming Iran? ... For the first time since World War II, America's rule of the skies may be challenged by its failure to invest adequately in the next generation of American aircraft. Russia and India have already agreed on joint development of a fifth generation fighter based on existing Russian airframes. ... If Israel joined the consortorium, the product might challenge the F-35 in the world market for military aviation. ... Were Israel to strike Iran during the next few weeks, it might do so not as a proxy for the US, but as part of a broader agreement with Russia. America may have missed the point of Russian policy. The entire issue of sanctions on Iran may seem like diplomatic idiocy to the Russians; the question, in Moscow's judgment, may come down to a digital decision: either attack Iran, or don't. ... The [US] may cast away its technological edge in air power without a second thought, but Russia understands that superpower status today depends more on military technology than any other factor. ... If Israel were to set back Iran's nuclear weapons development, the position of the Tehran regime would deteriorate, particularly at the expense of Pakistan. ... The world's attention will shift from the shadow-play of interests between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, to the Pakistan-India theater. Pakistan is the natural center of militant Islam. ... What is most astonishing is that official Washington seems entrely oblivious to the crack-up of American influence occuring in front of its eyes. ... The reason for Obama's peculiar mode of governance, though, may have less to do with his apparent narcissim than with his objectives. It is a credible hypothesis that this president holds views that he cannot easily share, even with his own staff. ... There is some basis for the conjecture that his innermost sentiment is hard-core, left-wing Third World antipathy to the [US]", my emphasis, Spengler at Asia Times, 19 October 2009, link:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KJ20Ak03.html.

As ususal, I agree with Spengler. Obama is the first US president whose administration I've lived through who I suspect of treason. I can't believe double-Ivy League Obama is as ignorant as he appears. He is disarming the US and pushing Israel into Russia's lap. Brilliant.

Not So Odd Couple

"As the world begins recovering from the worst financial crisis in 70 years, an odd couple of winners have emerged: stocks and gold. So far this year, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, a bet on economic recovery, is up 14%. Gold futures, a bet on calamity, are up 19%. ... But the creation of all that money, together with the [Fed's] maintenance of near-zero benchmark interest rates and the prospect of heavy government borrowing to fund deficits, threatens to weaken the dollar and fuel inflation and economic volatility later. ... 'In 5,000 years of human history, gold has been the currency of choice, the store of value, when humans have called into question their governments' efforts to solve problems by running printing presses' and injecting money into the economy, says Michael Avery who helps oversee the $22 billion Asset Strategy funds of asset-management firm Waddell & Reed in Overland Park, Kan. ... Just a few years ago the idea that paper monety was somehow suspect and gold was the best store of value was the province of a frightened few. No longer. In recent months, gold has been pushed to new highs as investors who once considered precious metals archaic have been shifting funds in that direction to avoid a too-heavy exposure to Western currencies", my emphasis, ES Browning at the WSJ, 26 October 2009, link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125649623986906719.html.

I see gold and the Dow rising as manifestations of a decrease in the dollar's value. If stocks, excepting financials, represent claims on real assets, as the numeraire, dollars, decreases in value, gold and stocks should rise as expressed in dollars. This is more terrible reporting from the WSJ, which cannot separate its news and editorial pages.

How Many Divisions Has Goldman?

"Given its vast reserves and seemingly healthy economy, a default by China's government or one of its tentacles should be one of the lesser concerns for international markets. ... There is no official comment; terrified international bankers are silent. But reports in the local press and some elaboration by participants suggest that efforts by the country's large shippers, airlines and power companies to cope with high oil prices by taking out futures contracts produced steep loses as the market reversed and prices fell. ... If the contracts were arranged outside China through subsidiaries in Hong Kong, Singapore or London, which is common, then they were almost certainly done under non-Chinese laws that are unlikely to by sympathetic to deliberate deadbeats", Economist, 3 September 2009, link" http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_Id=14365060.

"China's government on Monday offered public encouragement to state-owned companies challenging foreign banks over huge losses from derivative contracts, a move that bankers say has raised the risks of dealing with some of China's largest enterprises. ... In a statement on its Web site, the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission said it supported moves by unnamed Chinese enterprises to seek recourse for their losses in structured financial derivative contracts tied to the price of oil and reserved the right to file lawsuits itself. ... With concern already rising in recent weeks that Beijing might challenge the fuel-derivative losses, bankers have been scurrying to protect themselves. One day last week, trading in certain contracts all but shut down in China, bankers say. Now, bankers are discussing how to impose stiffer collateral requirements for Chinese airlines and other companies that seek derivative contracts. ... In early August, China Eastern Airlines Corp., Air China Ltd. and China Ocean Shipping (Group) Co. sent letters to six international investment banks warning that certain transactions 'may be void, invalid or unenforcecable,' said a person familiar with the letters. Among the banks understood to have received such letters are Deutsche Bank AG, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. [GSG], JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Morgan Stanley, according to three people familiar with the situation. ... Lawyers said Beijing's statement is startling. The government is 'actively encouraging Chinese state-owned companies to cut their losses by taking various actions, including legal actions,' said Alan Wang, a partner at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP", my emphasis, James Areddy, Laura Santini and Shen Hong at the WSJ, 8 September 2009, link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125234556777390497.html.

What nonsense. Hong Kong courts will enforce judgements Beijing doesn't want enforced? How may divisions have the counterparties? Does GSG think this is AIG? Bankers are terrified by Beijing, but not by Washington, why? Is GSG a "deliberate deadbeat" which courts are supposedly unsympathetic to?

GSG knows how to collect its money. Have Uncle Sam go to war with China! Why shouldn't China's enterprises renege? Unc will default on his debts to China. Will Unc bail GSG out of this mess too? This is not AIG, Lloyd Blankfein. Tread very carefully here. Things "happen" in China. Perhaps to GSG personnel. Don't go to China yourself. Send an emissary, like Zimbabwe Ben. He's expendable.

Viva Mexico!

"Mexico decriminalized small amounts of marijuana, cocaine and heroin on Friday, in a move that creates one of the world's most permissive narcotics markets and that opponents say could complicate President Felipe Calderon's war against illegal drug cartels. ... Mexican prosecutors say the law will help the war on drug gangs by letting federal prosecutors focus their attention on major traffickers rather than small-time users, and by allowing state and municipal police to tackle local dealers. ... Still, Mexico's move could anger some allies in Washington. ... Mexico joins a growing list of countries in Europe and Latin America that are rethinking parts of the decades-long war on illicit drugs. ... Early this year, three former presidents of Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia blasted the drug war as a failure that threatened the stability of countries throughout Latin America and called for the decriminalization of marijuana. ... But rates of drug use have risen steadily, while corrupt Mexican cops have used the law to shake down casual users for hefty bribes", my emphasis, David Luhnow and Jose de Cordoba at the WSJ, 22 August 2009, link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125086054771949269.html.

I applaud Mexico's decision. The losers: corrupt Mexican cops and our DEA. We should follow Mexico. Among other things, our drug war is a foreign policy nightmare. Calderon's next move: repeal all Mexican drug laws! The Mexican prosecutors statement makes no sense. They could always have declined to prosecute possession cases.

Who Lost Russia?-3

"Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview that Russia's economy is 'withering,' and suggested the trend will force the country to make accommodations to the West on a wide range of issues, including loosening its grip on former Soviet republics and shrinking its vast nuclear arsenal. ... The geographical proximity of the emerging nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea is also likely to make Russia more cooperative with the US in blocking their growth, he said. ... 'Russia has to make some very difficult, calculated decisions,' Mr. Biden said. 'They have a shrinking population base, they have a withering economy, they have a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years, they're in a situation where the world is changing before them and they're clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable.' ... Despite Russia's economic and geopolitical difficulties, Mr. Biden said, Moscow could become more belligerent in the short term unless the US continues to treat Russia as a major player on the international stage. He said Russian leaders are beginning to grasp their diminshed global role, but that the US should be cautious not to overplay its advantage. ... Mr. Biden's remarks illustrate the extent to which the Obama adminstration believes the balance of power is shifting toward Washington, giving the White House a new opening to leverage its strategic advantages to pursuade Moscow to reduce Russia's nuclear arsenal, loosen its grip on emerging democracies on its border, and cooperate on Iran and North Korea", Peter Spiegel at the WSJ, 25 July 2009, link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124848246032580581.html.

"US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the Obama administration considered Russia a 'great power' and wanted it to be a strong and properous country, in an apparent effort to reassure Moscow that the White House remains committed to efforts to 'reset' bilateral relations. ... 'We view Russia as a great power,' Mrs. Clinton said on NBC News's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday. 'Every country faces challenges. We have our challenges, Russia has their challenmges. There are certain issues that Russia has to deal with on its own.' ... On Sunday, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev criticized the US over its continued support of membership in [NATO] for the former Soviet republics of Ukraine and Georgia, saying the alliance 'is not ready' to absorb them", Peter Spiegel and Alan Cullison at the WSJ, 27 July 2009, link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124862640632881795.html.

Biden and I live in different worlds. Biden wants Russia to reduce its nuclear arsenal then tells Russia to worry about Iran and North Korea. Biden thinks Russia's banking system is in sorry shape. Look at ours Joe. Absent illegal immigration, the US population base is shrinking. The US does not want to modernize its conventional or strategic forces. Why should anyone take us seriously? Biden has a promising career ahead as a stand-up comic. Alternatively, he can ghost write material for Peggy Noonan, my 2 August 2009 post: http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2009/08/peggy-noonan-comic.html.

Shades of Chamberlain's 1939 Polish guarantee, my 30 August 2008 post: http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2008/08/foreign-policy-fools.html. I agree with Medvedev, we should not admit any state bordering Russia into NATO. Will NATO go to war for Georgia? In Russia's backyard?

Swiss Banks and the IRS

"In a sign that UBS AG's high-profile spat with the [IRS] is chipping away at Switzerland's private banking industry, some Swiss banks are cutting off or curbing business with American clients for fear of crossing US authorities. A number are no longer accepting deposits from US-based customers, or allowing them to open accounts. ... The battle has made some banks in Switzerland see clients based in the USD-regardless of nationalitiy--as an expensive liability. ... For American citizens, who are taxed by the US government on all world-wide income, regardless of its origin, Swiss banks don't offer obvious legal tax advantages. ... Over the past several weeks, Zurich-based retail bank Zurcher Kantonalbank decided to no longer accept business from US cloients, a spokesman said", Katharina Bart at the WSJ, 21 July 2009, link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124812576770166239.html.

Why the big push to stop Americans from holding money in Swiss banks? Is it to reduce tax evasion? Or should we don our tin foil hats and expect the 1963-74 Interest Equalization Tax to return, and Treasury figures it will be easier to enforce such tax if Americans hold no money abroad? Stay tuned.

Barack Hussein Carter

"There is good reason to believe the goals of the 9/11 attacks were not just to inflict maximum casualties, economic dislocation and humiliation on America, but also to provoke a strong US response. Osama bin-Laden and his band of murderers apparently calculated that a large scale American military reaction will ignite the Muslim world and possibly lead to an all-out confrontation with the infidels. The plot failed but the current Muslim-US tensions must be viewed with great satisfaction in al-Qaida's hideouts. ... Mr. Obama's apparently believes [sic] his main role is that of advertiser-in-chief where he can employ his undeniable personal qualifications and attributes to get a target audience to 'buy' his 'new and improved' American product. This approach is preferable not only because it avoids the costly confrontations and backlash brought about by the Bush Administration but in the final analysis is much more effective. Mr. Obama seems to forget that his non-audience is armed and dangerous and hell-bent on ripping up his 'under new management' sign even before the 'sale' itself has begun. ... It would indeed be a historical irony is in the wake of the new President's stress on shared destinies and universal human values the 'axis of evil,' a concept which came to haunt his predecessor, would regain its relevance. ... No matter how many Israelis pay the price, it is sure to argue that the violence only confirms the urgency of reaching a deal with the Palestinians and ensuring that Washington's new Islamo-centric foreign policy bears fruit", Avigdor Haselkorn, 29 June 2009, at: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/obamas_middle_east_strategy_me.html.

"Instead, Mr. Obama has sprinted from continent to continent with the speed and confidence of a grandmaster. He has made the opening moves is almost all of the important games. ... Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations [CFR], [Hillary Clinton] explained that the administration had made a strategic decision to deal with 'the urgent, the important and the long-term all at once'. ... One of the most pivotal games is being played in the Middle East--in Mr Obama's effort to re-establish the Arab-Israeli peace process. ... It is central to what he promised in Cairo would be a 'new beginning' in America's relationship with Muslims. Some of the most critical moves will be made during the next few weeks. Mr. Obama is the first president since Jimmy Carter to put the Middle East conflict centre-stage at the outset of his presidency. ... Like the chess player, the US president understands how to marry tactics to strategy. Each move in the putative peace plan is calculated to advance a comprehensive settlement--underwitten by a normalization of relations between the Arab states and Israel, as well as by the wider international community. ... Israel must be assured of its security--critically by recognition across the Arab world--and the new Palestinian state of its territorial integrity", my emphasis, Phillip Stephens (PS) at the FT, 17 July 2009.

"It is difficult to find more hatred of the West, than in the West itself. Listen and read what the representatives of the Western elite--academicians, novelists and show-business stars--say, and you will find no difference in their ideas and those of the leaders of the Taliban or 'Al Qaeda.' ... David C. Hendrickson, a professor at Colorado Collge, compared Georgee W. Bush to Stalin. ... A refined sadist and pathological murderer, he would turn in his grave if he heard the professor. ... If Stalin's Red Army had occupied Baghdad, not only terrorists, but Baghdad itself would have stopped their [terrorists] existence in a week's time. And not a single one of the present liberals would have uttered a word of protest. The reason for it is: they admire force, and Stalin was the embodiment of force. ... It is the reflex of servility and worship of force that impregnates the cultural establishment of the West. ... What are the aims of the Western liberal elite? They are none... Instead they consistently and purposefully destroy foundations of their own civilization, support the most ominous forces which dream of the destruction of a free society", Baron Bodissey (BB) at Gates of Vienna, 17 July 2009, link: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/07/pinnacle-of-self-destruction.html.

"What I dubbed the Obama administration's 'rapid and harsh turn against Israel' has had three quick, predictable and counter-productive results. These point to further difficulties ahead. First result: Barack Obama's decision to get tough with Israel translates into escalating Palestinian demands on Israel. ... Second result: The US government takes marching orders from Abbas and passes them along to the Israelis. ... Some background: Zionists founded the Shimon Hatzadik neighborhood in 1891 by purchasing land from Arabs, the, due to Arab riots and Jordanian conquest, abandoned the area. ... Third result: The US demands has prompted an Israeli resolve not to bend but to reiterate its traditional positions. ... [Netanyahu said]: 'We cannot accept the idea that Jews will not have the right to live and purchase land in all parts of Jerusalem. I can only describe to myself what would happen if someone would propose that Jews could not live in certain neighborhoods on New York, London, Paris or Rome. There would certainly be a major international outcry'," Daniel Pipes (DP), 21 July 2009 at: http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=35648.

"In foreign policy President Barack Obama has demonstrated a disturbing propensity to curry favor with our adversaries at the expense of our friends. ... Mr. Obama's attempted bullying of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu [BN] is a case in point. ... Subsequently, Mr. Obama demanded that Israel freeze construction in east Jerusalem. Of course, Mr. Netanyahu rejected Mr. Obama's demand. He declared that Jerusalem is an open, undivided city 'that has no separation according to religion or national affiliation.' Mr. Netanyahu added that 'we cannot accept the idea that Jews will not have the right to live and purchase in all parts of Jerusalem.' ... Israel has been willing to accwept a two-state solution since the United Nations partition resolution for Palestine in 1947, but the Arabs have refused it. They are not interested in creating a separate Palestinian Arab state but in destroying Israel as a Jewish state. ... Arabs launched a war against Jewish self-determination and the state of Israel long before any Israeli 'occupation' of their lands", my emphasis, Mackubin Owens (MO) at the WSJ, 25 July 2009, link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204886304574308172135404080.html.

Quoted without comment.

What category does the Palestinians' plight fall into? I say, ignore them. Treat them like the Kuwaitis did after 1991. Is PS for real? There is no "Arab-Israeli peace process". There never was. Had PS heard of the "Three Nos"? Is PS crazy? Or in the Saudis' employ? Or is this another Peggy Noonan piece, i.e., written tongue in cheek? Hey PS, did UN peacekeepers separate Israel and Egypt before the 1967 war? Didn't Gamal Nasser tell the UN peacekeepers to leave? They did. Is BN so stupid to think UN "Blue hats" will die protecting Israel from Arabs? PS, either you are a fool, or an anti-Semite who wants Israel and its inhabitants destroyed. Which? We spent 78 days bombing Serbia to protect Moslems. For? In 1956 we had Israel, France and Britain withdraw from Eqypt. For? Peanut farmer Carter pushed out the Shah and brought us Khomeni, or does PS forget that too? Hillary and Obama are engaging in a flurry of activity expecting only a few soundbites. Hey PS, do you want to be nominated for this year's "Chamberlain"? From 1948-67 Jordan and Egypt controlled the West Bank (WB) and Gaza respectively. Why wasn't a Palestinian state formed then? The existence or non-existence of a Palestinian state has nothing to do with peace between the Arabs and Israel. Never did. Ask Hamas. Read Hamas position papers. To its credit, Hamas is honest with respect to Israel. It will not rest as long as the Israelis control "one square meter" of the "land between the river and the sea". That's the bottom line.

Yes BB.

What should we expect from a man whose grandfather liberated Auschwitz? Some history. About 20 years ago I read a book, yes last one, about Palestine. I found the 1936 book in a used book store. Can you believe Joos lived in what is now called the WB in 1936? What happened to them such that we have "settlements" today? During the 1948-49 war, the Joos were driven out of the WB and had their property seized. Now they are told not to return. Imagine, POTUS Obama supports WB apartheid. Disagreeing with DP, there are places in Paris where Joos may not live.

BN, call a press conference. Cite 1960s speeches of Martin Luther King. Change the location from the South to the Middle East. We'll see POTUS Obama's reaction. Will he go home to Michelle, crying? Today's Sharia lesson: non-Moslems may not own land in Moslem countries. Disagreeing with MO, all of the land "between the river and the sea" is occupied land. As is Spain.

Obama's Halo Slips

Robert Kagan writes, "President Obama likes to see himself as a pragmatist, but in foreign policy he is proving to be a supreme idealist of the Woodrow Wilson variety. ... We will see whether Barack Obama, the most Wilsonian president in a century, fares better", Washington Post, 7 June 2009.

Wow. That appeared in Wapo! I referred to Wilson before, on 30 July 2007, 6 February and 14 September 2008 and 16 February 2009, links:
http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2007/07/saudi-arabia-iran-and-woodrow-wilsons.html.
http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2008/02/woodrow-wilson-upside-down.html.
http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2008/08/which-is-war-party.html.
http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2009/02/woodrow-wilson-infects-obamas-state.html.

No One is This Stupid, I Think

"Even before the mystifying Kim Jong Il took power in 1994, the outside world was trying mightily to figure out how the North Korean regime works. ... None of that offers much hope for change. North Korea is already the world's most isolated country; the idea that Kim Jong Il's regime even cares if its isolation 'deepens' is dubious at best. ... The fundamental notion underlying US diplomacy with Pyonyang since the Clinton era--a hawkish detour under George W. Bush notwithstanding--is that the North can be bribed. ... But following its latest test, the assumption that North Korea [NK] will be ultimately willing to negotiate away its nuclear program is under new scrutiny", my emphasis, Bill Powell and Stephen Kim at Time, 8 June 2009.

I never thought the US could bribe NK. If serious, we had to destroy NK's nuclear sites. What is mystifying here? In about 1964 Chairman Mao Zedong told the USSR China was the world's only country that could lose 300 million people in a war and still win. NK is of this mentality. NK doesn't care if it is isolated. I don't believe for a second Clinton thought NK could be bribed into doing anything. He and Bush just played "kick the can" with NK for 16 years and now we are where we are.

Obamaramus

"Modern man has developed nuclear weapons. But even more devastating, he has developed birth control pills and television. ... He has created doctrines of entitlement and freedom, offering food stamps and free medicine for the masses. And now the relationship between the advanced countries and the 'developing world' can be described in the words of Louis Veuillot, 'When I am the weaker, I ask for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I an the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle.' Here is the predator at work, even in the midst of civilization (in the overturning of civilization", JR Nyquist (JRN), 22 May 2009 at http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2009/0522.html.

"Obama's knowledge of World War II is laughably simplistic--and I admit to laughing my head off when I heard his comment about Austrian as a language. Europe blushed. ... Question: Does Obama, holder of diplomas from Harvard and Columbia, think Hitler spoke Austrian too, or does he think Hitler was born in Germany? Think about it liberal Democrats. ... In more recent times, it appears that Obama is using a radical gay activist's blog to make history talking points too. Or at least he repeats blogger Andrew Sullivan's precious view that the conservative Winston Churchill won World War II without using torture!", Ben-Peter Terpstra, 24 May 2009 at: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/planet_obama_where_hitler_spoke.html.

"We all have hopes and dreams. And then there is reality, which demands our attention and our respect. America has been living in a dream world for almost twenty years, somehow managing to evade reality--social, economic and international. The process of economic unraveling is our pecuniary punishment for evading reality. Destructive war has been, and will be again, our national punishment. ... 'I don't believe that anybody in the administration thinks that there is a crisis,' said US Defense Secretary Robert Gates. While the entire world sees a crisis, while North Korea threatens to re-ignite the Korean War, President Obama and Secretary Gates fall back on hopes and dreams. The President hopes that China will discipline its errant North Korean child. ... This is the same Robert Gates who publicly warned that unless the [US] repairs its nuclear weapons infrastructure the US nuclear deterrent could become 'unreliable' by the end of this year. Gates' real concerns have little to do with the proliferation of North Korean nukes. What troubles him is the deconstruction of America's nukes. The nuclear genie left the bottle long ago. What else is new? ... As government revenue shrinks the administration borrows trillions to 'stimulate' the economy. Interest rates have been lowered, loans are being encouraged. The cause of our economic ailment is supposed to be the cure. Meanwhile, the cheapest weapon of defense--our nuclear arsenal--is no longer worth funding. In fact, it is viewed as immoral and questionable (as something from our reactionary past). ... What has protected the US mainland for the last six decdes is no longer in vogue. Our protection will be found in diplomacy, in promises set down on pieces of paper; promises made by foreign governments. ... Nuclear weapons cannot be un-invented. This has nothing to do with the Cold War. And besides, the Cold War never ended. It continues today, whether we acknowledge it or not", JRN, 29 May 2009, at: http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2009/0529.html.

"In the same sense that Toni Morrison claimed Bill Clinton was our first black president, Barack Obama could be thought of as another groundbreaker: our first female president. He displays every trope of femininity more than any female 'who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime' (to borrow Morrison's phrase about Clinton). ... Obama is filled with sensitivity (one might even say, empathy), he would rather talk then fight, is highly (yet selectively) compassionate and to top it all off, he has a finely tuned sense of fashion. BO attempts to collaborate with Europeans, South Americans, Muslims and nearly everyone else except the citizens of red state America. ... In addition, Obama has surrounded himself with women in most important security and foreign policy positions in his adminsitration. While some might choose to describe BO as our first metrosexual President, the clincher is that, consistent with all outward appearances, the Obama administration fights like a girl. ... With the arsenal of the world's sole remaining superpower avaliable to him, Obama sounds more like the UN Secretary general scrambling for the best euphemism to downplay each situation than a serious stateman with the greatest military and economic might on the planet to back him up. No matter what other qualities our bellgerent enemies might have, they are definitely men of action. ... I'm just grateful that Obama had the good sense to bow to the Saudi King at the G20 summit in London., At least he didn't curtsey", original italics, my emphasis, Ralph Alter (RA) 5 June 2009 at: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/our_first_female_president.html.

"Barack Obama's speech in Cairo is one of the most bizarre orations ever made by an US president, not a foreign policy statement but rather something invented by Obama, an international campaign speech, as if his main goal was to obtain votes in the next Egyptian primary. ... The first problem is that Obama said many things factually quite untrue, some ridiculously so. ... The interesting question is whether Obama consciously lied or really believes it. I'd prefer him to be lying, because if he's that ignorant than America and the world is in very deep trouble. ... An Associated Press headline reads, 'Obama's Islam Success Depends on Israel.' Is the entire 'Muslim World' just waiting for Israel to stop building a few thousand apartment units a year before deciding that America is great, reform is needed, and moderation wise", Barry Rubin, 5 June 2009 at http://www.gloria-center.org/Gloria/2009/06/speaking-flattery-to-power.html.

"In his speech last week in Cairo, President Obama proclaimed he was a 'student of history.' But despite Barack Obama's image and an Ivy League-educated intellectual, he lacks historical competency, in areas of both facts and interpretation. ... The Americans didn't free [Auschwitz or Treblikna]. ... [Obama] began, 'I know that I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in [Berlin].' He apparently forgot that for the prior eight years, the official faces of American foreign policy in Germany were Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. ... In the recent Cairo speech, Obama's historical allusions were even more suspect. Almost every one of his references was either misleading or incomplete. ... But the great colonizers of the Middle East were the Ottoman Muslims, who for centuries ruled with an iron fist. ... Obama also insisted that 'Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition.' Yet the Spanish Inquisition began in 1478; by then Cordoba had long been re-conquered by Spanish Christians, and was governed as a staunchly Christian city. ... Obama also stated: 'For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humilitation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights.' With all due respect to our president, this assertion is not fully accurate. The only thing that ended slavery in the [US] was the Civil War, which saw some 600,000 Americans--the vast majority of them white--lost in a violent struggle to ensure that nearly half the country would not remain a slave-owning society", Victor Hanson, at National Review, 11 June 2009.

Yes, JRN, I remember Ahmed Ben Bella, my 6 February 2008 post: http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2008/02/woodrow-wilson-upside-down.html. As for the principle, this is Prophet's (PBUH) operating principle. In Mecca he was conciliatory. He raised an army and was warlike in Medina. As the Prophet (PBUH) said, "Deception is the essence of warfare". What is it we fail to understand in the West?

Let's look at some Obama stories. During the campaign "He" said "His" grandfather liberated Auschwitz. I remarked to a buddy of mine, "Obama's an ignoramus. Auschwitz was in Poland. It was liberated by the Russians". My buddy said, "You're the idiot. Obama spoke the truth". I said, "how"? My buddy, "Obama's grandfather was a member of the Red Army". Ouch. Obama once said he campaigned in all "57 states". I thought, "Fool. Are you a Heinz ketchup salesman? In my day, we had to memorize all the states, their capitals and place them on a map. Admittedly, it was easier then. There were only 48 states in those days. Recently three bloggers ascribed a different significance to Obama's "57 states" remark, noting the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIS) has 57 members. Ergo, Obama is confused, not realizing he is president of the US, not the OIS. Ohhh.

My best take on Obama: he is a spoiled child.

I first thought of Obama as a metrosexual after the arugula incident. Watching him bow to the Saudi King I thought, "He should ask the King if the King prefers a Japanese or Russian-style kowtow". Yes, Obama "fights like a girl". Why didn't Michelle accompany "Him" on his recent trip? Because when "He" asked Michelle to wear a chador in the King's presence, Michelle said, "what's the matter with you girl? I can whup the King easily". Then for emphasis she hit BO with a left hook, flooring him. I think. From the Samurai warriors' code, "Action is distilled intent". BO can talk. Humphrey Bogart in the "Maltese Falcon", 1941, BO ain't. Hey Don King, you have an opportunity here, Michelle v. The Saudi. 12 Rounds in Vegas. I like it. What's the morning line on Michelle?

Quoted without comment.

Who does Obama think TE Lawrence fought against and with in 1917? Which country did the UK get the Palestine Mandate from in 1920? POTUS Obama don't know nuttin'.

India and Nukes

"Since World War II, US military dominance has underpinned the Asia-Pacific region's properity and relative peace. So it's cause for concern when one of America's closest allies sees that power ebbing amid unstable nuclear regimes such as Pakistan and North Korea and the expanding military power of China. In the preface to a sweeping defense review released Saturday, Australian Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon writes: 'The biggest changes to our outlook ... have been the rise of China, the emergence of India and the beginning of the end of the so-called unipolar moment; the almost two-decade-long period in which the pre-eminence of our principal ally, the [US], was without question.' ... But without sustained US defense spending and focus on the Asia-Pacific, it's unclear which nation will ulitmately dominate the region--and that could have profound effects on security and trade. ... In response to this outlook, Canberra is retooling its defense. It is doubling the size of its submarine fleet to 12 from six and buying about 100 Joint Strike Fighters, three destroyers and eight frigates", Editorial at the WSJ, 8 May 2009.

"Once, India was part of the problem. ... 'A stable, unitary Pakistan is in our interest,' says G. Parthasarathy, former Indian ambassador to Pakistan. And a Pakistan torn apart from the inside is an existential threat to a new India defined by an economic awakening and with a recently forged alliance with the US. ... India's election result gives President Barack Obama a pretext to drop his strange reluctance thus far to engage New Delhi, which got on famously with his predecesssor. After all, most of the worst-case scenarios in Pakistan (including nuclear war) involve South Asia's leading power. Start with Pakistan's nukes. From the Indian vantage point, Pakistani assurances, echoed by US leaders, about the security of the arsenal are worth little to nothing. Imagine the Taliban, another extremist group or rogue elements of the Pakistani military get their hands on one or more of the country's nearly 100 warheads. Then what? ... Compounding concerns are what Indian and US officials believe are ongoing Pakistani efforts to enlarge and modernize its nuclear arsenal, including by developing plutonium warheads, as well as to improve delivery systems. The Chinese, who share Islamabad's dislike of India, 'help us upgrade,' says a Pakistani official. That only serves to heighten Indian anxieties. ... But potentially more worrisome are signs of radicalization in the Punjab. Contagion in this traditionally moderate and most populous Pakistani province could encircle Islamabad and bring instability to India's borders. ... Team Obama wants India to draw down along the frontier and give Pakistan's military cover to shift forces westward against the Taliban. Back have come lectures from Indians about Pakistan's superior force strength on the border. India won't take orders from Washington lightly", my emphasis, Matthew Kaminski, at the WSJ, 22 May 2009.

Our actions are not being ignored by Iran or the Arab world either.

Does Obama think India is Israel? "Obama ... [has a] strange reluctance thus far to engage New Delhi". Hmm. Obama & Co., don't seem to like Netanyahu's Israel either. Hmm. How dare those damn Kaffirs, Hindus, not accept "Pakistani assurances" at face value. After all, Obama & Co. vouch for them. Suppose India withdrew say 100,000 troops from near the Pakistani border. Would Pakistan then redeploy its troops to fight the Taliban? I think not.