Pakistan in fragments

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (pictured) and Benazir Bhutto's husband Asif Ali Zardari have decided to form a coalition against President Musharraf in Pakistan. However, since Musharraf's party still controls a number of seats in the parliament, it's likely to result in political deadlock and lots of angry rhetoric between the two sides--much like Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. The terrorists who are targeting Pakistani cities do not seem to care who is in charge though, and they were perfectly willing to remind us of that today.

In my opinion, Nawaz Sharif is unintentionally helping the Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants tear his country apart by taking such misguided actions based on vengeance (Musharraf ousted him from power back in 1999). However, if Nawaz, Zardari, and Musharraf all decided to put aside their differences for the good of the country, shake hands, and pledge to work towards unity even amid clear differences, it would inflict a tremendous hit on the terrorists--because it would send them the message that even after carrying out countless attacks and inflicting harm on thousands of people, they have failed in their attempt to divide the country. Such a move could seriously weaken their morale and their propaganda campaign.

Maybe it would even send a message to the politicians here in the United States, who spend more time looking out for their party than anything. Unfortunately though, this does not look good. If these people find a way to work together, it could bring hope...but if Musharraf is forced to resign and the new government takes ineffective action against the Islamic militants camped out along the border, they could very well be setting the stage for their own destruction. Because with Musharraf gone, and an American ally that could end up electing a president who could take embrace a more "non-interventionist" approach, the opposition might have no one to save them when the Taliban come marching on Islamabad.

Global Warming News!

When I first came upon this article, it took me a little while to verify that it was in fact real. But apparently, it is.

This is from the Sunday Herald in Scotland:

EVERY CLOUD could have a silver lining in the fight against global warming and the brighter, the better.

Professor Stephen Salter, a renowned engineer working at Edinburgh University, has hatched a plan to produce white clouds over the ocean to halt the catastrophic water heating associated with global warming.

In the worst-case scenario, where global "tipping points" such as the melting of the Arctic ice cap are reached, he claimed launching a fleet of cloud-producing drone ships could save Earth.

Salter, who is famed for inventing the "duck", a device that generates power by bobbing on waves, said: "We've got an explosive with the detonator in it, and when one goes off, it could trigger other explosives. That's why we need to have a number of solutions. I don't mean that we should continue burning coal and then just fix the consequences, that would be terrible. Just as a revolver has many bullets, we need several ideas."

mmmm...a fleet of cloud-producing drone ships ...I think that says it all right there. And to think, they gave the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore!

Terror in the holy city of Jerusalem

Israel experienced one if its worst terrorist attacks in almost two years on Thursday when a Palestinian gunman raked a Jewish Seminary with gunfire, killing eight people before being shot death himself. President Bush and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas condemned the attack, but Hamas and other Palestinian militants "blessed" it...and threatened that more attacks would be coming.

Now I've never understood these Palestinian terror groups and what goes through their minds when they commit such evil acts. They claim to be fighting for the "liberation" of their people, but in the end, this attack will inflict more harm on innocent Palestinians than on Israelis, seeing as Israel will most likely retaliate against Hamas and Islamic Jihad installations in the Gaza Strip. It's also troubling that these people are carrying out attacks while Israelis and Palestinians are trying to work out a peace agreement. Obviously, terrorists groups like Hamas do not want peace...they just want to kill Jews, as well as Palestinians who choose not to go along with their call for the destruction of Israel.

Obviously, international diplomacy is a good thing. If two countries have differences but want peace in the end, then it is one of the best tools available. However, when the opposing side does not want peace and does not want to co-exist, it is useless. That point was proven last year when Hamas overthrew President Abbas' government in the Gaza strip and executed some of its members in the streets. At the same time, a simple military operation against Palestinian terrorism will not solve the problem either...in fact, it could only make it worse in the long run. Instead, the Palestinians must be convinced that Hamas' use of political violence is not the solution and work together with Israelis to phase out such beliefs. Once the terrorists lose the support of the people, they're infrastructure falls apart, its that simple. The Anbar Province in Western Iraq is proof of that.

Alarming news from East Africa...

Violence in Somalia has forced thousands of people to leave their homes, and many of them have turned to fleeing across the ocean to Yemen. Unfortunately, the journey is dangerous, but its probably safer than waiting around in battle-scarred Mogadishu.

This is from the BBC:

"The United Nations refugee agency says there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people crossing the Gulf of Aden in smugglers' boats. The UNHCR said almost 9,000 people, most of them Somalis, arrived in Yemen's coastal waters in the first two months of this year.

That is three times as many as during the same period last year, the organisation said in a statement.

At least 113 people died and a further 200 are missing, presumed drowned.

Those making the crossing were crammed into 182 boats, the Geneva-based UNHCR said."

If only it were this easy...

The race to become the leader of a superpower is no easy battle. To do so, one must raise a lot of money, know the issues, have experience, and appeal to the people--the voters who will decider whether or not they are fit to be leader. The current race for president here in the United States is a perfect example of just how difficult this accomplishment is. Just look at the ongoing battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, along with John McCain's struggle to win over conservative voters.

But what if it was easier? What if Hillary Clinton could simply decide that Barack Obama was not fit to be president and had the government shut his campaign down? What if President Bush decided he wanted to have a conservative in the White House in '09, and appointed Dick Cheney as the republican nominee, while eliminating the most serious challengers on the other side. Sure, to make sure it still looked like a "fair" election, maybe he would allow someone like Ralph Nader or Ron Paul to run, but in the end, his choice would end up being the victor. Yep, it would be pretty easy to hold onto power if you were in control of who could and could not run.

In Russia, that is exactly has happened. President Vladimir Putin, who is barred from running for a third term under the Russian Constitution, appointed a hand-picked successor to replace him. On March 2nd, Dmitry Medvedev, Putin's candidate, was elected to office with over 70% of the vote. Of course, its always a lot easier to win if the most formidable opponents are banned from running, protesters are beaten in the streets, and critics meet suspicious deaths. Now that he is stepping down as president, Putin is expected to take the role as Prime Minister...while his buddy Medvedev will serve as President. The most likely scenario is that Putin will be able to continue on with his current policies, while holding onto a seat of power.

This shouldn't be a surprise though. President Bush might consider Putin to be a "good man", but the west should have been able to see this coming. For years, Putin has been attempting to rebuild Russia's image by consolidating power across the region. His regime has restricted free speech and he has increased the production of military weapons, all while supporting countries like Iran and helping them enrich uranium.

It sure is an interesting way to hold on to power though, isn't it? If the bad blood between Clinton and Obama seems bad, or the antics of Anne Coulter attacking John Mccain seem intense, then you just need to have a look at what's unfolding in Moscow. Not to mention, some Americans might be unhappy with our current president, but at least they can verbally attack him without having to worry about being beaten or arrested.

One thing's for sure, Vladimir Putin is a scary man. Whoever wins the presidential election this November, he/she will have the task of dealing with Putin and the KGB...and it will not be easy.

Hypocrisy, ignorance, or a little of both?

Yesterday, tensions exploded in the Gaza Strip as Israeli forces clashed with Palestinian militants, leaving some 65 people dead in what is being called the worst violence in years. Israel has been condemned by many in the international community, although the Jewish state shows no sign of backing down as Palestinian rockets continue to pound the Israeli border towns of Sderot and Ashkelon.

My View on this:

The truth is, I think Israel is making a mistake by launching such a massive operation during critical peace talks with the moderate Palestinian government in the West Bank. In fact, they are doing exactly what Hamas wants, which is for the peace process to be destroyed. In the end, I will always defend Israel's right to exist, but if they had responded to this crisis by calling for more peace talks with the moderates even as rockets are being lobbed over the border, it would show the terrorist groups that their efforts have failed and could very well inflict more harm on Hamas' propaganda outlets than any missile or artillery strike.

However, this is where I am confused. As the international community condemns Israel over this so-called "bloodbath", Taliban militants have unleashed all-out chaos across northwestern Pakistan, killing scores of people in a series of suicide bombings and other attacks. On Sunday alone, some 40 people were killed when a bomber blew himself up at a reconciliation meeting among tribal leaders. Just 48 hours earlier, scores of others met a similar fate when another blast ripped through a funeral procession in the scenic Swat Valley. Sadly, the funeral was being held for a police commander who had been killed hours earlier in a roadside attack. Among the dead at the funeral attack was the policeman's 16-year old son.

Where is the outrage over this? Where are the cries for peace and restraint when these evil people unleash their waves of terror upon innocent Muslims? Arab leaders are not referring to this as a "holocaust", even though the casualties caused by these terrorists far outweigh what has been happening in Gaza in recent days. Images of babies killed in Gaza air raids are plastered all over anti-Israel media outlets, but they seem less willing to talk about the young kids who are strapped up with explosives and used as human bombs in Pakistan.

The one good thing the Israelis and the Palestinians have is that there are many international mediators doing everything they can to stop the fighting...and they would be wise to work with them. After all, that is what makes international diplomacy such a useful tool, as opposed to dealing with the matter like Pakistani insurgents and blowing up reconciliation meetings.

Some thoughts on Barack Obama and what his presidency would mean for this country

I read a post by Iraqi Mojo earlier about Barack Obama and his surging popularity, along with the challenges he could be facing (his middle name among other things). Well anyway, it got me thinking "what if this guy actually wings the presidential election this November?" After all, he's poised to crush Hillary Clinton in the upcoming primaries, and more and more Americans seem to be desperate for "change" these days.

To give my personal opinion, I like Obama. I think he is a good, honest man who for the most part stands up for what he believes in. He's managed to attract Americans from all walks of life and seems to have the ability to be a uniter, as opposed to the divisive and polarizing figures presidents Bush and Clinton were and have been. However, as Dennis Miller put it on the O'Reilly Factor the other day, "He has everything except my vote." Indeed, I could not cast a vote for Obama, not at this time anyway.

Why? Well his position on Iraq is the main reason. He tends to embrace the far-left's stance, which is that the war was a big mistake and we need to get out as soon as possible. Obama has pledged to begin withdrawing troops soon after he takes office, and I believe that would be a disaster. If he would re-evaluate his position (and I don't think that will ever happen), I might be more supportive of him. To simply jump on the "Bush lied people died" bandwagon in an attempt to score votes is ignorant and just plain stupid. Obama can condemn Bush's handling of the war all he wants, but the fact is, ridding the world of a terrible human being like Saddam Hussein was justified and necessary. And even if he is opposed to going into Iraq in the first place, a seemingly intelligent man like Barack Obama should be able to foresee the humanitarian disaster that would tear the country apart if it does not have a functioning government and security force before U.S. troops begin packing up. If the so-called antiwar movement is alarmed by what the terrorists have been doing in Iraq these last few years, then they have a rude awakening coming if these evil people are able to operate unabated...and it would be a crying shame if that were to happen after so much progress has been made in Iraq. The horrific images of rebel militiamen terrorizing innocent people and burning villages across Eastern Congo and the forgotten jungles of Africa could be making their way into the streets of Baghdad if Iraqis, Americans (both liberal and conservative), and the international community do not find a way to work together in the best interest of the Iraqi people.

The other problem I have with an Obama presidency is his proposal to deal with countries like Iran, Syria and North Korea. Obama has pledged to meet Iranian officials face to face, and I also think that would be a big mistake. Giving legitimacy to the bloody theocracy in Tehran or the brutal regime of Bashar Assad in Syria would be harmful and counter-productive. In reality, if you are going to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the leader of a country that has sworn to destroy Israel and arms terror groups all over the globe, why not propose a face-to-face meeting with Mullah Omar and other Taliban leaders in Afghanistan? Secondly, as strange as this sounds, President Bush is another good example of naive diplomacy. Yes, President Bush regularly holds talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he has referred to as a good man. I'm sorry Mr. President, but Vlad is not our friend...far from it in fact. While we've been trying to convince ourselves that Putin is our friend, he has consolidated power in Russia and has supported some of the world's most dangerous men, like Kim Jong Il in North Korea and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Numerous political opponents have also met suspicious deaths, and Russia's recent acquisition of new weaponry certainly raised questions. Therefore, if Barack Obama decided to buddy up with Ahmadinejad and reach a mutual understanding regarding his country's nuclear program, who to say a similar debacle will not happen?

In the end, Barack Obama may be the right man to solve some of the domestic problems going on here at home...he might even be able to serve as a uniter between the ideologues and haters in Washington who spend more time bashing each other than actually solving problems. However, his views on foreign policy are questionable, if not simply misguided and wrong.

Harry Reid's words of wisdom

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid had this to say about the situation in Iraq earlier today...

"Americans need to start taking care of Americans."

If only Harry Reid could have been the spokesman for Bill Clinton during the Rwandan Genocide, when we sat back and did nothing as the bodies of almost one million innocent people piled up in the countryside and cries for help echoed throughout the hills of central Africa. Come to think of it, Bush 41 could have used him in 1991 when he abandoned the Shiites in southern Iraq, after we "defeated" Saddam.

I know I've said this before, but isolationism and non-intervention are failed policies and always will be.

The Israel factor

On Friday night, I had the opportunity to visit a Synagogue and meet with the Jewish community here in the East Bay. After observing the Shabbat service, we discussed current events and politics over coffee and pastries, which I must say was a very positive and enlightening experience. I talked about my fascination with current events, as well as my desire to see as much of the world as possible, and they happily discussed with me the values of their religion and how they feel about some of the events happening in the world today. In the end, I was able to think long and hard about Judaism, Israel and the perception regarding the faith and the Jewish state.

In recent weeks, I have been offering my commentary on several political blogs. Almost on a daily basis, I have traded arguments with numerous responders, many of whom speak strong criticism against Israel. Do not get me wrong, that is perfectly fine, seeing as I myself have disagreed with some of the tactics the Israelis use in their daily battles Hamas and Islamic Jihad gunmen. However, I will defend Israel's right to exist until the very end. I believe that Israel, as well as the Palestinians, are in a fight for survival against a force that is determined to destroy both of them. That of course, is political terrorism, an evil that all too often justifies its actions under the banner of Islam.

Here's how I reached that conclusion. Keep in mind, when I say this, I am not favoring the Israelis or the Palestinians, but I am instead concerned for both of them. Both sides have certainly made many mistakes in the conflict, which is now in its seventh decade. But the analysis does not focus on that, nor does it assign blame to either side.

My analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

Today, both Israelis and Palestinians are dying because of Gaza's Hamas rulers, the smaller, violent factions that go along with them, and their supporters in Iran and Syria. We all remember Hamas' bloody takeover of the Gaza strip, in which hundreds of Palestinians were killed, a move which should have drawn condemnation from even the harshest critics of Israel. All the while, rockets continue to pound Israeli border towns and the threat of the terrorists resuming their "martyrdom operations" looms in light of the deadly Dimona bombing in central Israel earlier this month. Still, there are people who continue to blame Israel for the situation unfolding in the Middle East, even as terrorists continue to slaughter innocent Muslims across North Africa and central Asia, hundreds of miles away from the daily clashes between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian militants. It's often said that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the primary reasons for sparking the war on terrorism, yet in reality it appears to be just another conflict between two sides the terrorists have taken advantage of (Iraq and Pakistan also come to mind here). Notice that terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (North Africa), the Taliban, and the Somali insurgency all embrace the same murderous ideology as Hamas while using similar tactics (suicide bombings, rocket attacks, kidnappings). The big difference though, is that there are no "Zionist forces" in those countries to provoke them. There are no Israeli settlements intruding on Arab land and no "occupation" in Algeria, yet that did not stop terrorists from murdering scores of innocent Muslims and leveling entire buildings in coordinated bombings, some of which surpassed any terror attack ever committed in Israel. All the while, Palestinian terrorists that buy into the same ideology as those murderers continue to use every effort available to sabotage the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. When Israel's leaders try to meet with the peace-seeking Palestinian leadership in the West Bank, the rockets start flying. By doing so, Hamas and its supporters are stating that they have no regard for the well being of Israel or the Palestinians they claim to be defending. After the events of last year, Israelis, Palestinians, Israel critics, and Israel supporters alike should all be able to put aside their differences and reach a similar conclusion.

So the point is that Israel does not seem to be the main culprit behind the violence we are seeing across the Muslim world, in my opinion anyway. Muslims have been hit the hardest since 9/11 in terms of terrorist attacks, far more than westerners as a matter of fact. To further prove that point, here is another example. Obviously, the Israeli-Palestinian crises goes back to the land dispute that started many years ago, just like the situation in Iraq between Sunni and Shia. However, as I pointed out, fuel is added to the fire when terrorists do everything they can to set off more violence. The conflict is exacerbated when rockets blast houses of innocent people and suicide bombers decimate Israeli Cafes in Tel Aviv or Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad.

As salafism and other brands of political terrorism sweep across North Africa and threaten southern Europe, even Jimmy Carter could see this coming if he would drop the whole "peace not apartheid" rhetoric and open up his eyes.

Bush's approval rating soars

I know, the title sounds crazy. However, I'm not referring to the president's sinking poll numbers here at home. In Africa, Bush's approval rating is well over 80%. It may seem surprising at first, but that area of the world, a place that has seen countless years of disease, starvation, and war, generally has a positive view of the United States.

On Tuesday, President Bush visited Rwanda and met with President Paul Kagame, the man who led the resistance against the brutal Hutu militias that ended up slaughtering almost a million innocent people in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. During the visit, he toured the genocide memorial, and pledged to keep up the pressure on the Sudanese regime for its atrocities in Darfur. The President's other contributions to Africa include spending nearly 15 billion dollars to combat HIV/AIDS across the continent, with similar actions being taken to fight malaria. He has also granted billions of dollars in African debt relief and has offered much support in Africa's quest to move forward into the 21st century. In the end, the lives of many Africans have improved because of the administration's policies.

Odds are though, this isn't the big story out there you'll be hearing on the news. No, the media and President's growing number of critics would rather focus on an economic recession and his falling poll numbers here in the US, along with the obsession over all things negative in Iraq. At the same time, the two buffoons better known as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are given a pass as the promises they made during the '06 elections come up empty.

Maybe the president is not the aweful man he is all too often villified as.