About Me

Name: halthouse1
Email: exetertraining@aol.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

Iran, Uranium and Flimflam Florio

From The Political Commentator Keep Giving Iran More Time, The Only Result Will Be More Time Lost
As could have been expected and predicted, Iran, given and apparently accepting the structure of a deal by the United Nations to ship its enriched uranium to France and Russia, is once again making a mockery out of the international community. This past Friday they missed the deadline to respond to the draft proposal drawn up by the IAEA, and today was quoted by a news source as saying that while they agree in principle to the framework, they want very "important" changes made to it. Iran says that they will let the world know what the changes are within 48 hours. Like a parent who gives warning after warning and threat after threat to the disobedient child, Iran puts little if any credence in the resolve of the countries involved to actually back up any tough rhetoric with substantive action. As the perfect example, this was what the Foreign Minster of France had to say regarding these new stall tactics: "We have been waiting for light at the end of the tunnel for almost three years. We will wait until we decide that enough is enough and that the process is exhausted," ... "One day it will be too late." That is a very open ended statement, and one which would lead anyone reading, particularly the leaders of Iran, to think that there is time plenty of time for more games and deceptions. The only action, unfortunately, that will hold any weight is that of military action.  Anything else is merely a killer of time leading up to the inevitable, all the while Iran goes on about it's merry way. Sanctions and diplomacy are merely a way of giving this country more time to do what it is that it wants to do. For starters, as articulated by its leader, Iran would like to blow Israel out of existence.  The enablers around the world, posing as leaders, need to take a stand.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What If Hawaii Was At Risk? What Would We Do?

From <a href="http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com">The Political and Financial Markets Commentator</a>. Visit and sign-up for your free email or feed delivery.

<strong>What Would The United States Do If A Missile Out Of North Korea Was Headed Towards Hawaii? Let's Ask Secretary Of Defense Gates:</strong>
<strong></strong>
<span style="font-size:85%;">"Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Gates said North Korea "probably will" fire the missile, prompting the host of the show to ask, "And there's nothing we can do about it?"</span>
<span style="font-size:85%;">
"No," Gates answered, according to an account of the interview on foxnews.com. "I would say we're not prepared to do anything about it."</span>
<span style="font-size:85%;">
Last week, Navy Adm. Timothy Keating, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, said in an interview with ABC News that the U.S. military was "fully prepared" to shoot down the missile, if ordered to do so. But Gates said Sunday such a response was unlikely.</span>
<span style="font-size:85%;">
<strong>"I think if we had an aberrant missile, one that was headed for Hawaii, that looked like it was headed for Hawaii or something like that, we might consider it," Gates said. "But I don't think we have any plans to do anything like that at this point."</strong></span> (<a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/not-prepared-stop-north-korea/story.aspx?guid=%7B2F21B81C%2DF016%2D4240%2D9CC2%2DEE7833BADA71%7D">MarketWatch</a>)

<a title="Blue Hawaii by janruss, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/janinerussell/2121859675/"><img height="328" alt="Blue Hawaii" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2085/2121859675_0213b1e9a2.jpg" width="500" /></a>

Hmmmm. Has Hawaii heard about this? I would hope if a missile was headed for New York, the Pentagon would do more than just think about shooting it down. Is Hawaii expendable, or does this exchange indicate the state of our foreign policy?

Are we operating under benign neglect? Through policy by omission as opposed to commission?

Where, I ask again, is <strong>Secretary of State Clinton</strong> through all of this. Is she waiting at the United Nations to be ready to put in our complaint to the Security Council when North Korea test fires this missile? Is she personally observing the dismantling of our missile defense in Eastern Europe so that we can then rely on the Russians to take care of the nuclear threat in Iran?

It seems as if our foreign policy is going to be to react when God forbid something happens. I personally don't think that is a foreign policy. It is the old hope and pray. <strong>The Obama administration seems to want to go to the polar opposite point of the Bush administration in terms of foreign policy.</strong> They don't even want to say anything that may appear to be combative for fear of sounding less than diplomatic.

That stance has gotten us to the point of an imminent missile test firing and the planned trial of two journalists accused violating the North Korean border. As I have said the Obama administration is being tested, and so far the grade is not an A.

Maybe we can hurry up and get a quick U.N. Resolution.


<p><strong></strong></p>
<p></p>

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The North Korea Missile Launch Discussion Continued

From The Political and Financial Markets Commentator at http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com
 
Morality Update: 5:00 PM ESPN Around The Horn
 
Maybe a little early in the day and on a program watched by kids. Right or wrong?

North Korean Planned Rocket Launch
 
As discussed yesterday, North Korea is moving ahead with it's plans to launch what they say is merely a rocket designed to put a satellite into orbit. The suspicion is that this will serve as a test for a rocket that would be used to power a long-range missile that would be capable of reaching Alaska. There is also speculation that the launch may actually be used to test the Taepodong-2 missile (the picture below is only a dramatization). To keep the world in suspense the top of the rocket is reported to be covered.
 
 20061029-040416-IMG_5009
 
This clearly represents a test of the resolve of the Obama administration in terms of response to the potential provocation, and it appears that we will move on down the rhetoric road which will utilize the U.N. as our mouthpiece. The White House said that any launch would be a violation of a U.N. ban and result in serious consequences. Secretary of State Clinton warned that a violation could keep the talks on hold that would supply North Korea with aid for decommissioning it's nuclear capability. Does the leadership of North Korea care that much about aid that might be of help to the average citizen? I don't know about that. "We intend to raise this violation of the Security Council resolution, if it goes forward, in the U.N.," Clinton said Wednesday in Mexico City. "This provocative action in violation of the U.N. mandate will not go unnoticed, and there will be consequences." (Townhall.com)

I am sure this threat does not have Pyongyang quaking in its boots. This is a rock and a hard place moment for the Obama administration, and the rest of the world will be watching!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Israel: The Subject Of Another Biased U.N. Resolution

Reprinted from The Political and Financial Markets Commentator at http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com
 

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Israel: The Subject Of Another Biased U.N. Resolution

 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860

“Reaffirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders,

“5. Condemns all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism"

These are just two of the points in the resolution, and to read it in this context it sounds as if it is very high in purpose and intention. The problem, as with all of the work that comes out of the United Nations, is that it is completely, 100% skewed against Israel and completely, 100% pro-Palestinian.

Pain and Suffering Of The Palestinian People

First and foremost, the pain and suffering being endured by the innocent civilians of Gaza is a tragedy, plain and simple. No one believes that more than Israel who is a provider of humanitarian aid to these civilians.

The problem with the U.N. and most governments and media outlets around the world, beyond the blatant ant-Israeli bias, is that no one is placing any of the blame for the need to invade Gaza where it belongs. Squarely on the head of Hamas. There is absolutely no consideration given to the barrage of missile attacks that Israel lives under, and the number of years it has been going on with no real level of retaliation by the Israelis'.

Trying To Find The U.N. Resolution Pertaining To The Missile Firings on Israel

Can't find it I guess because there isn't one!

All of the horror and indignation pointed at Israel for defending itself has been no where to be found over the past 7 years as a reported 6000 missiles have been fired indiscriminately into Israel.

First with short range missiles, and now with a longer range missile capability that Hamas is getting from someplace and someone. No thought is given by Hamas as to who might be at the other end when they are fired, unless the thought is to kill as many innocents as possible.

United Nations, where is your Resolution on this one? Would it get the same 14 votes in favor if it were ever drafted?

Now apparently Hamas has a complex series of tunnels through which these missiles and weapons are brought into Gaza.

Apparently they have no problem storing these weapons in civilian neighborhoods, schools and anywhere else the collateral damage will be the greatest!

This is the goal for Hamas. Damn the casualties of its' own people. To them it is all a public relations war and let the civilian casualties be damned.

As I have said previously, take the names and identities out of the equation and then determine if ABC Land (aka Israel) has the right to defend its' sovereign borders against an enemy that fires missiles at its' citizens with no provocation other than a hatred that has been in existence for a very long time.

I defy any other country on earth, including the 14 on the Security Council who voted for Resolution 1860, to put themselves in the position of Israel and say that their method of dealing with these attacks on its' citizens would simply turn the other cheek and let the U.N. handle things (except maybe France. Sorry France).

Sphere: Related Content
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »