From Peter Baker and Robin Wright in the Washington Post, Tuesday, December 4, 2007 (Page A01):
A Blow to Bush's Tehran Policy
"President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program.
"The new intelligence report [National Intelligence Estimate] released yesterday not only undercut the administration's alarming rhetoric over Iran's nuclear ambitions but could also throttle Bush's effort to ratchet up international sanctions and take off the table the possibility of preemptive military action before the end of his presidency."
What does all this mean?
1. Let me borrow a phrase from myself: Nobody Knows Anything. I use that as my mantra and caveat in handicapping the upcoming presidential primaries. But my record for picking winners in Iowa and New Hampshire over the last twenty years is much more impressive than the intelligence community's demonstrated ability to give us reliable information concerning weapons of mass destruction in the hands of our enemies. This particular NIE and four dollars will buy you a tasty cup of coffee in your local Starbucks.
2. Assuming the report is right, however, and the Iranians put the quietus on their program in 2003, is there anything significant about that moment in history? I think so. The Iranians were properly intimidated by American military prowess and resolve. The sentiment of the hour: "Oh sh-t! This SOB is crazy." If the report is right, it is extremely instructive concerning the efficacy of George Bush's foreign policy in 2003.
3. Assuming the report is right, the Iranians were working on a nuclear weapons program up until 2003. This means they might decide to resume the program at any time.
4. Assuming the report is right, and the Iranians halted the weapons version of their nuclear program as a result of US intimidation in 2003, it is reasonable to assume that they are a lot less fearful of the United States today. With the clock running down on Bush, and the nation divided, I am extremely reluctant to celebrate this report as an "end to the threat." I am with the Israeli's on this one. We need to be vigilant.
5. As for Peter Baker's speculation that military action is off the table, I agree. But I have said that for more than a year. Military action is off the table because of the Iraq situation. In fact, this report gives the Bush administration some cover to do nothing militarily concerning Iran--a choice for which they had no other realistic option.
A Blow to Bush's Tehran Policy
"President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program.
"The new intelligence report [National Intelligence Estimate] released yesterday not only undercut the administration's alarming rhetoric over Iran's nuclear ambitions but could also throttle Bush's effort to ratchet up international sanctions and take off the table the possibility of preemptive military action before the end of his presidency."
What does all this mean?
1. Let me borrow a phrase from myself: Nobody Knows Anything. I use that as my mantra and caveat in handicapping the upcoming presidential primaries. But my record for picking winners in Iowa and New Hampshire over the last twenty years is much more impressive than the intelligence community's demonstrated ability to give us reliable information concerning weapons of mass destruction in the hands of our enemies. This particular NIE and four dollars will buy you a tasty cup of coffee in your local Starbucks.
2. Assuming the report is right, however, and the Iranians put the quietus on their program in 2003, is there anything significant about that moment in history? I think so. The Iranians were properly intimidated by American military prowess and resolve. The sentiment of the hour: "Oh sh-t! This SOB is crazy." If the report is right, it is extremely instructive concerning the efficacy of George Bush's foreign policy in 2003.
3. Assuming the report is right, the Iranians were working on a nuclear weapons program up until 2003. This means they might decide to resume the program at any time.
4. Assuming the report is right, and the Iranians halted the weapons version of their nuclear program as a result of US intimidation in 2003, it is reasonable to assume that they are a lot less fearful of the United States today. With the clock running down on Bush, and the nation divided, I am extremely reluctant to celebrate this report as an "end to the threat." I am with the Israeli's on this one. We need to be vigilant.
5. As for Peter Baker's speculation that military action is off the table, I agree. But I have said that for more than a year. Military action is off the table because of the Iraq situation. In fact, this report gives the Bush administration some cover to do nothing militarily concerning Iran--a choice for which they had no other realistic option.
03/12: Measuring Humanitarian Aid
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
From TIME magazine:
A new tool to evaluate governments' humanitarian spending can help countries get aid out more efficiently to those who need it, say former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the Spain-based non-profit DARA. Their Humanitarian Response Index (HRI), launched Thursday in London, ranks Sweden as the world leader in humanitarian aid. Norway comes second, followed by Denmark, the Netherlands and the European Commission. The U.S. scores a lowly 16th out of 23. (See the full rankings below).
Full story.
Can you spot the problem with this story, especially the headline? America does not contribute most of its humanitarian aid through the U.S. government. U.S. citizens contribute through a variety of private agencies, many of them Christian.
This essay puts things in better perpective.
Some excerpts:
The European claims about stingy American foreign aid are easy to dispense with, because they ignore the enormous private gifts that characterize American generosity (such as donations following the tsunami), and therefore greatly understate true American humanitarian assistance. The U.S. Agency for International Development notes that official U.S. development assistance, at about $10 billion, is roughly 0.1 percent of GDP, but this amount is accompanied annually by about $50 billion in aid from private sources, including foundations, religious congregations, voluntary organizations, universities, corporations, and individuals (in the form of remittances to friends and family). All told, American overseas aid—mostly private, not public—comes to about 0.5 percent of GDP (approximately $200 per American). And this does not even count more controversial aid sources, such as military aid and private investment abroad by American businesses.
What world elites tend to ignore is that America has a thriving private sector, including religious organizations, through which most aid money is given, and through which most voluntary work is done.
A new tool to evaluate governments' humanitarian spending can help countries get aid out more efficiently to those who need it, say former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the Spain-based non-profit DARA. Their Humanitarian Response Index (HRI), launched Thursday in London, ranks Sweden as the world leader in humanitarian aid. Norway comes second, followed by Denmark, the Netherlands and the European Commission. The U.S. scores a lowly 16th out of 23. (See the full rankings below).
Full story.
Can you spot the problem with this story, especially the headline? America does not contribute most of its humanitarian aid through the U.S. government. U.S. citizens contribute through a variety of private agencies, many of them Christian.
This essay puts things in better perpective.
Some excerpts:
The European claims about stingy American foreign aid are easy to dispense with, because they ignore the enormous private gifts that characterize American generosity (such as donations following the tsunami), and therefore greatly understate true American humanitarian assistance. The U.S. Agency for International Development notes that official U.S. development assistance, at about $10 billion, is roughly 0.1 percent of GDP, but this amount is accompanied annually by about $50 billion in aid from private sources, including foundations, religious congregations, voluntary organizations, universities, corporations, and individuals (in the form of remittances to friends and family). All told, American overseas aid—mostly private, not public—comes to about 0.5 percent of GDP (approximately $200 per American). And this does not even count more controversial aid sources, such as military aid and private investment abroad by American businesses.
What world elites tend to ignore is that America has a thriving private sector, including religious organizations, through which most aid money is given, and through which most voluntary work is done.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Slavery is not a thing of the past. Around the world, including in the USA, slavery continues. When teaching US History leading up to the Civil War, my college students usually have the attitude of "how could those people not see slavery was wrong?", and assume they would have been abolitionists. The room gets really quiet when I challenge them with the facts on modern slavery and ask them if they are in the modern abolition movement.
From The 2007 U.S. State Department Report on Human Trafficking:
The Scope and Nature of Modern-Day Slavery
The common denominator of trafficking scenarios is the use of force, fraud, or coercion to exploit a person for profit. A victim can be subjected to labor exploitation, sexual exploitation, or both. Labor exploitation includes slavery, forced labor, and debt bondage. Sexual exploitation typically includes abuse within the commercial sex industry. In other cases, victims are exploited in private homes by individuals who often demand sex as well as work. The use of force or coercion can be direct and violent or psychological.
A wide range of estimates exists on the scope and magnitude of modern-day slavery. The International Labor Organization (ILO )-the United Nations agency charged with addressing labor standards, employment, and social protection issues-estimates there are 12.3 million people in forced labor, bonded labor, forced child labor, and sexual servitude at any given time; other estimates range from 4 million to 27 million.
Annually, according to U.S. Government-sponsored research completed in 2006, approximately 800,000 people are trafficked across national borders, which does not include millions trafficked within their own countries. Approximately 80 percent of transnational victims are women and girls and up to 50 percent are minors. The majority of transnational victims are females trafficked into commercial sexual exploitation. These numbers do not include millions of female and male victims around the world who are trafficked within their own national borders-the majority for forced or bonded labor.
Human traffickers prey on the vulnerable. Their targets are often children and young women, and their ploys are creative and ruthless, designed to trick, coerce, and win the confidence of potential victims. Very often these ruses involve promises of a better life through marriage, employment, or educational opportunities.
The nationalities of trafficked people are as diverse as the world's cultures. Some leave developing countries, seeking to improve their lives through low-skilled jobs in more prosperous countries. Others fall victim to forced or bonded labor in their own countries. Women eager for a better future are susceptible to promises of jobs abroad as babysitters, housekeepers, waitresses, or models--jobs that traffickers turn into the nightmare of prostitution without exit. Some families give children to adults, often relatives, who promise education and opportunity, but sell the children into exploitative situations instead.
Some sources of information for modern abolitionists:
Anti-Slavery International here.
For all the criticism I have made of the mainline Presbyterian Church (PC-USA), they are becoming aware of this issue.
The Christian relief group, WorldVision is active on this issue, especially with child slavery.
This documentary, Lives for Sale, should be shown in every possible venue.
The U.S. State Department's 2007 Human Trafficking Report has been released.
The Report lists countries by groups termed Tiers based on their efforts against, or lack of efforts, to eliminate slavery. Tier 3 are the worst countries.
Tier 3
ALGERIA, BAHRAIN, BURMA, CUBA, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, IRAN, KUWAIT, MALAYSIA, NORTH KOREA, OMAN, QATAR, SAUDI ARABIA, SUDAN, SYRIA, UZBEKISTAN, VENEZUELA
The Tier 2 Watch List is made of of countries that are currently of interest to the U.S. regarding slavery. It is like being on probation. In future reports they may move up to Tier 2, or down to Tier 3.
Tier 2 Watch List
ARGENTINA, ARMENIA, BELARUS, BURUNDI, CAMBODIA, CENTRAL AFRICAN REP., CHAD, CHINA (PRC), CYPRUS, DJIBOUTI, DOMINICAN REP., EGYPT, FIJI, THE GAMBIA, GUATEMALA, GUYANA, HONDURAS, INDIA, KAZAKHSTAN, KENYA, LIBYA, MACAU, MAURITANIA, MEXICO, MOLDOVA, MOZAMBIQUE, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, RUSSIA, SOUTH AFRICA, SRI LANKA, UKRAINE, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Keep these countries in mind as you Christmas shop.
Previous Bosque Boys posts on modern Slavery:
Slavery Today
Islam and Slavery
North Korea's Human Slavery Traffic
From The 2007 U.S. State Department Report on Human Trafficking:
The Scope and Nature of Modern-Day Slavery
The common denominator of trafficking scenarios is the use of force, fraud, or coercion to exploit a person for profit. A victim can be subjected to labor exploitation, sexual exploitation, or both. Labor exploitation includes slavery, forced labor, and debt bondage. Sexual exploitation typically includes abuse within the commercial sex industry. In other cases, victims are exploited in private homes by individuals who often demand sex as well as work. The use of force or coercion can be direct and violent or psychological.
A wide range of estimates exists on the scope and magnitude of modern-day slavery. The International Labor Organization (ILO )-the United Nations agency charged with addressing labor standards, employment, and social protection issues-estimates there are 12.3 million people in forced labor, bonded labor, forced child labor, and sexual servitude at any given time; other estimates range from 4 million to 27 million.
Annually, according to U.S. Government-sponsored research completed in 2006, approximately 800,000 people are trafficked across national borders, which does not include millions trafficked within their own countries. Approximately 80 percent of transnational victims are women and girls and up to 50 percent are minors. The majority of transnational victims are females trafficked into commercial sexual exploitation. These numbers do not include millions of female and male victims around the world who are trafficked within their own national borders-the majority for forced or bonded labor.
Human traffickers prey on the vulnerable. Their targets are often children and young women, and their ploys are creative and ruthless, designed to trick, coerce, and win the confidence of potential victims. Very often these ruses involve promises of a better life through marriage, employment, or educational opportunities.
The nationalities of trafficked people are as diverse as the world's cultures. Some leave developing countries, seeking to improve their lives through low-skilled jobs in more prosperous countries. Others fall victim to forced or bonded labor in their own countries. Women eager for a better future are susceptible to promises of jobs abroad as babysitters, housekeepers, waitresses, or models--jobs that traffickers turn into the nightmare of prostitution without exit. Some families give children to adults, often relatives, who promise education and opportunity, but sell the children into exploitative situations instead.
Some sources of information for modern abolitionists:
Anti-Slavery International here.
For all the criticism I have made of the mainline Presbyterian Church (PC-USA), they are becoming aware of this issue.
The Christian relief group, WorldVision is active on this issue, especially with child slavery.
This documentary, Lives for Sale, should be shown in every possible venue.
The U.S. State Department's 2007 Human Trafficking Report has been released.
The Report lists countries by groups termed Tiers based on their efforts against, or lack of efforts, to eliminate slavery. Tier 3 are the worst countries.
Tier 3
ALGERIA, BAHRAIN, BURMA, CUBA, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, IRAN, KUWAIT, MALAYSIA, NORTH KOREA, OMAN, QATAR, SAUDI ARABIA, SUDAN, SYRIA, UZBEKISTAN, VENEZUELA
The Tier 2 Watch List is made of of countries that are currently of interest to the U.S. regarding slavery. It is like being on probation. In future reports they may move up to Tier 2, or down to Tier 3.
Tier 2 Watch List
ARGENTINA, ARMENIA, BELARUS, BURUNDI, CAMBODIA, CENTRAL AFRICAN REP., CHAD, CHINA (PRC), CYPRUS, DJIBOUTI, DOMINICAN REP., EGYPT, FIJI, THE GAMBIA, GUATEMALA, GUYANA, HONDURAS, INDIA, KAZAKHSTAN, KENYA, LIBYA, MACAU, MAURITANIA, MEXICO, MOLDOVA, MOZAMBIQUE, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, RUSSIA, SOUTH AFRICA, SRI LANKA, UKRAINE, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Keep these countries in mind as you Christmas shop.
Previous Bosque Boys posts on modern Slavery:
Slavery Today
Islam and Slavery
North Korea's Human Slavery Traffic
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Democrats claim that under the Bush administration America has lost standing with the rest of the world. I wonder who, exactly, they are talking about. Voters in Germany and France have elected leaders who support U.S. policy. Great Britain still does, though not as vocally as under Tony Blair. And now Denmark has re-elected pro-U.S. Prime Minister Fogh Rasmussen. Story here on Gateway Pundit. Meanwhile several Eastern European nations would like U.S. NATO forces based in their countries.
13/11: Dangerous If "Made in China"
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Another product with dangers; and this goes beyond lead paint in toys.
VIRUS: Investigators say the tainted Maxtor portable hard disc, made by Seagate, uploads information saved on the computer automatically to Web sites in Beijing
Buy an external hard drive, have your data sent to websites in China. Just great. Why do we still have open free trade with these *ssh*l*s?
Post on Wizbang with links. The quotation above from the Taipei Times. (It is in English so click no if asked to install language packet.)
VIRUS: Investigators say the tainted Maxtor portable hard disc, made by Seagate, uploads information saved on the computer automatically to Web sites in Beijing
Buy an external hard drive, have your data sent to websites in China. Just great. Why do we still have open free trade with these *ssh*l*s?
Post on Wizbang with links. The quotation above from the Taipei Times. (It is in English so click no if asked to install language packet.)
26/10: Belated Happy U.N. Day
I missed it. Wednesday was United Nations Day in the U.S. Had I noticed in time I might have observed it. By flying the flag of the United States.
Why is the U.N. granted some sort of moral legitimacy by so many? Because, Okie, it's a world council of nations. How many of those nations have legitimate governments? What do you mean? According to one of our nation's founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, a government is legitimate if it has the consent of the governed, and remains legitimate so long as it safeguards the God-given rights of the people. So, I ask again, how many of the governments making up the United Nations are legitimate governments?
Well, well, you narrow-minded pretentious blogger, who are you to impose your standards on other people? Do you think that you have rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that your government cannot take away arbitrarily? Why, yes. What is your point? Are you the only one in the world with such rights? I see where you are going with this, you are trying to get me to admit there is a universal truth that applies to everyone regardless of culture. You are trying to make me blaspheme Political Correctness and the Moral Relativism that underlies it. You are trying to trap me with patriarchal, Euro-centric logic. Yeah, yeah. So, are you the only one in the world with basic rights or does everyone have basic rights? . . .
Shouldn't we grant moral authority to a body that is made up of delegates from all over the world? Wouldn't the decisions of that body have a moral superiority to the decisions of only one nation? Why? If all the people in my small town gather and vote to burn a small boy at the stake just for the fun of it, should I recognize their moral superiority over any opposing view, say that held by the small boy, and treat their decision as sacrosanct because the town meeting included all the people of the town? What? I see you are a journalism major, so I'll try to explain again. If the majority of nations in the U.N. vote to execute homosexuals, bar women from the workplace, abolish every environmental regulation, and end all aid to the poor, would you comply with their decision? Of course not. Why not, if you grant them moral authority? Because those would be bad decisions. So, the United Nations is not necessarily better than one nation doing the right thing? Wait a minute, you are trying to trick me again.
Why is the U.N. granted some sort of moral legitimacy by so many? Because, Okie, it's a world council of nations. How many of those nations have legitimate governments? What do you mean? According to one of our nation's founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, a government is legitimate if it has the consent of the governed, and remains legitimate so long as it safeguards the God-given rights of the people. So, I ask again, how many of the governments making up the United Nations are legitimate governments?
Well, well, you narrow-minded pretentious blogger, who are you to impose your standards on other people? Do you think that you have rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that your government cannot take away arbitrarily? Why, yes. What is your point? Are you the only one in the world with such rights? I see where you are going with this, you are trying to get me to admit there is a universal truth that applies to everyone regardless of culture. You are trying to make me blaspheme Political Correctness and the Moral Relativism that underlies it. You are trying to trap me with patriarchal, Euro-centric logic. Yeah, yeah. So, are you the only one in the world with basic rights or does everyone have basic rights? . . .
Shouldn't we grant moral authority to a body that is made up of delegates from all over the world? Wouldn't the decisions of that body have a moral superiority to the decisions of only one nation? Why? If all the people in my small town gather and vote to burn a small boy at the stake just for the fun of it, should I recognize their moral superiority over any opposing view, say that held by the small boy, and treat their decision as sacrosanct because the town meeting included all the people of the town? What? I see you are a journalism major, so I'll try to explain again. If the majority of nations in the U.N. vote to execute homosexuals, bar women from the workplace, abolish every environmental regulation, and end all aid to the poor, would you comply with their decision? Of course not. Why not, if you grant them moral authority? Because those would be bad decisions. So, the United Nations is not necessarily better than one nation doing the right thing? Wait a minute, you are trying to trick me again.
24/10: The Sun Setting on Europe
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Muslims continue to riot in the Netherlands. Now also in Brussels. Story.
Take one large unassimilated immigrant group. Add a religion that teaches its followers that they are superior to infidels and destined to rule the world. Place in a dish that has no confidence in its own value, and is crippled by political correctness.
Night is falling over Europe, again.
Take one large unassimilated immigrant group. Add a religion that teaches its followers that they are superior to infidels and destined to rule the world. Place in a dish that has no confidence in its own value, and is crippled by political correctness.
Night is falling over Europe, again.
23/10: Hollywood Goes to War
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Gotta love Hollywood. Watching Law and Order: SVU this evening. The setting was the war on terror, the themes torture and private military contractors. And the bad guys--us. (I will admit I did not watch the last twenty minutes of the show, way too preachy.
22/10: Rioting in the Netherlands
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
The dangers created by a large, unassimilated minority within a nation are on display again in the Netherlands, where rioting has lasted for days. Gateway Pundit has brought the news together.
I am unable to find anything in the English-language press about the riots. Most of the reporting in English seems to be coming through the blogosphere.
I am unable to find anything in the English-language press about the riots. Most of the reporting in English seems to be coming through the blogosphere.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Please note this brilliant Gerard Baker essay via the TimesOnline :
The US is a great place to be anti-American
"Al Gore...Nobel Peace Prize, an Oscar and an Emmy...Michael Moore...[the] Dixie Chick[s]...Sean Penn...[Jimmy Carter]...Bill Clinton."
"It has always amused me that the same people who denounce America as a seething cesspit of blind obscurantist bigotry can’t see the irony that America itself produces its own best critics. When there’s a scab to be picked on the American body politic, no one does it with more loving attention, more rigorous focus on the detail, than Americans themselves."
"I can only laugh when I see the popular portrayal of George Bush’s America in much of the international media. Supposedly serious commentators will say, without evident irony, that free speech is under attack, that Bush’s wiretapping, Guantanamo-building, tourist-fingerprinting regime is terrifying Americans into quiet, desperate acquiescence in the country’s proliferating crimes."
Read the entire piece here. I only wish I had written it. Thanks to Tocqueville for the heads-up.
The US is a great place to be anti-American
"Al Gore...Nobel Peace Prize, an Oscar and an Emmy...Michael Moore...[the] Dixie Chick[s]...Sean Penn...[Jimmy Carter]...Bill Clinton."
"It has always amused me that the same people who denounce America as a seething cesspit of blind obscurantist bigotry can’t see the irony that America itself produces its own best critics. When there’s a scab to be picked on the American body politic, no one does it with more loving attention, more rigorous focus on the detail, than Americans themselves."
"I can only laugh when I see the popular portrayal of George Bush’s America in much of the international media. Supposedly serious commentators will say, without evident irony, that free speech is under attack, that Bush’s wiretapping, Guantanamo-building, tourist-fingerprinting regime is terrifying Americans into quiet, desperate acquiescence in the country’s proliferating crimes."
Read the entire piece here. I only wish I had written it. Thanks to Tocqueville for the heads-up.
