Presidents Obama and Chavez and Secretary of State Clinton are all among the throngs of politicians around the world calling for the reinstatement of ousted Honduran president Zelaya.  The rallying cry is that Zelaya is the democratically elected president and that reinstating him would restore constitutionality to Honduras.  This is not only gross patronization to the Hondurans but is also beyond stupid.

Zelaya was ousted by the military, on orders of the Supreme Court and with the Congress accepting his resignation (if he wrote it or not is not the issue, Congress no longer recognizes him as the president) and swearing in the constitutionally next in line and Zelaya ally as the new president.  Oh and also the people don’t seem too upset; in a country of 7 million, 200 have shown up to protest.

So the only way I can see of reinstating Zelaya would be to invade Honduras, kill soldiers defending their homeland from foreign aggression, arrest the Supreme Court Justices, arrest most of the members of Congress,  execute the top military brass, and install Zelaya as president and enforce his rule (his military is dead at this point so it will have to be done by foreign troops) on a population that does not want him.  And this is what is referred to as “restoring the constitutionality”.  If you know of any other way to do it feel free to comment.

What is the mission of coalition troops in Iraq today?  This is a legitimate question that I would like responses to.  I’m not trying to prove a point, I’m just asking.  The removal of Saddam Hussein was a noble act and a just cause for going to war, even without WMD’s, ties to terrorism, or threats to his neighbors.  Hussein was a cruel dictator and the world is better with him gone.  I also understand the rationale behind staying to ensure fair democratic elections.  It is true that the Al Maliki government is not completely stable, but it is doubtful if it will ever be stable as long as coalition troops are there.  There is still violence in Iraq, but there can be no question that much of it is because of the presence of Western troops on Muslim soil.  The Bathists have for the most part been defeated.  Is it within the scope of the mission for the United States and Britain to prevent a civil war and Iraq?  It looks more and more like that is what they are doing.

This is from, Jihad Watch who in turn got it from, Infidel Bloggers Alliance. I never thought of the Fins as the type to back down from a fight. I always had this idea that they were rugged individualists who prided themselves on their independence. Through 700 years of foreign occupation, they were able to maintain their cultural identity and their language. Twice, they refused to back down to the Soviets and once to the Nazis. Yet today, I read that they have bent to the will of the Islamists. I don’t know what kind of rights are recognized by the Finnish government, but I had assumed that they were basic enough to include freedom of speech. I thought that was a given in the Western world. If it was, then it’s not anymore. The Islamists have accomplished what both the Red Army and the SS failed to do.

Finland sentenced blogger, Seppo Lehto to two years and seven months in prison. His crime? Defamation, inciting ethnic hatred, and inciting religious hatred. Lehto posted a video on YouTube in which he draws a pig named Mohamed popping a squat on the Koran. There is little doubt that Lehto is vile and hateful and I am not defending him, but this got him two years and seven months in a country where the maximum sentence for murder is twelve years! It appears clear to me, that Finland is afraid of the Islamists and is slowing surrendering. When will we see burqas and religious police in Helsinki?

Here is a link to the movie, you can watch it if you want to, but it is offensive. However, what he says about Mohamed being a pedophile is true, if you believe having sex with a nine year old is pedophilia. Citation from al-Hadith. I would love to get responses, especially from Fins, most especially from Muslim Fins.

Iraq never should have been a country.  Its borders are lines drawn in the sand by colonial powers after World War I.  The various peoples have no historic ties to bind them together in neighborly love nor do they have political, religious, or ideological ties.  Saddam Hussein was able to keep the country nominally unified through extreme brutality.

It should be partitioned into at least three smaller countries.  This would allow the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds to govern themselves as they see fit.  The only reason that the country was not partitioned after the ouster of Hussein was that the United States did not want to be accused of nation making by Britain, France, Russia, China, and others.  Make no mistake, the world powers will for the most part jump at any opportunity to criticize the U.S. but that is still the course of action that should have been taken and is possibly what should still happen.

The difficulty now is that the United States claims to have given sovereignty to Baghdad.  Of course any sovereignty Baghdad has is at the pleasure of the US as the US gave it to them and props them up through blood and treasure but, it is necessary to maintain the illusion of Iraqi sovereignty for diplomatic reasons.

A lot has been made of the division of oil wealth and how that is an obstacle to partition.  Call me old fashioned, but Iraq does not share its oil revenue with its neighbors currently, does it?  Does Japan share the revenue it gets from exporting electronics with Korea?  No, of course not.  Why would it?  I see no reason why Sunni Iraq should be expected to share revenue with Shia Iraq or vice versa.  To me this is a non-issue and those that are making a big deal of it are naïve, communal hippies, or attempting to stop progress.

Certainly partitioning Iraq would be of benefit to the average Iraqi but they can hardly be expected to take kindly to a foreign power chopping up their country.  If the US and Britain (etc.) were to completely pull out of Iraq before completely beating all remnant of the various militant groups, then it is very likely that Iraq would divide along sectarian lines anyway.  It may be inevitable; Iraq does not want to be a country.  In the absence of a strong armed dictator or foreign military powers, Iraq may just dissolve.

I am not a Ron Paul hater.  I am pretty close to him on some issues.  He speaks his mind and knows what he believes.  That is more than I can say for most politicians and I respect him for that.  Yesterday however, during the YouTube/CNN dabate he sealed his fate.  When asked about his plan for Iraq, Ron Paul’s answer not only sounded anti-military and anti-American but showed that he doesn’t understand the enemy we face in this war on Islamic terror. 

He said that we should pull our troops out of Iraq.  This alone is not surprising, but then he said that one of the primary reasons for the attacks of September 11th was the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia and that we should pull out of there as well.  This is where he displayed his ignorance. 

The Islamofascists are waging a holy war.  Ron Paul doesn’t seem to get this.  They truly have faith that what they are doing is the will of Allah and is therefore not only justified but obligatory.  When they say that they are waging jihad it is not just rhetoric, they mean it.  It is not difficult to see why they are fighting, it is not because we have a base in Saudi Arabia, it is because their religion tells them to.

“And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.”  Surrah (Quran) 8:39 Pickthall*

It is not hard to find, the Quran is in public domain!  If Ron Paul doesn’t understand that they attacked us because we are infidels then he would endanger the nation and the world as president.  I withdraw my support for his candidacy.

*Note: I changed the translation of Quran quotation due to complaints about the accuracy of the previous translation.  Pickthall is the most respected English translation of the Quran to my knowledge.

This is an issue I’ve put quite a bit of thought into and the more I think about it, the more I think it is a good idea.  Oil exporting countries have formed a cartel that can set the price of oil with essentially no opposition, it only makes sense to form a cartel of oil importing countries that would be powerful enough to negotiate with OPEC and lower the price of oil.  It seems like a no-brainer.  There is so much to this that I should be writing a book instead of a blog post but this will have to do for now. 

If the major oil importers bound themselves together and were willing the bare the initial and inevitable embargo from OPEC, the rewards that they would reap would be enormous.  Today oil is at nearly $100 a barrel, in 1999 it was around $10 a barrel.  Don’t believe me?  Just imagine what it would do for our economy if oil suddenly dropped to, say $20 a barrel.  That is not an unreasonable figure provided someone like OPIC was negotiating the price for us. 

Here is one example of how something like OPIC could work.  Representatives from the U.S., China, Canada, the E.U., Japan, Australia, and other Oil importing countries meet in Geneva and decide that they will pay $40 a barrel for oil.  The various countries refuse to buy any oil for any more than that.  At this point OPEC is almost certain to react by refusing to sell any oil at all.  Then the game of chicken begins.  It would all depend on who blinks first.  If OPIC could stomach gasoline rations and high prices long enough then OPEC would give in.  If OPEC would not agree to OPIC’s price then at least they might open up to negotiations on the price.  Another possibility is that the OPEC cartel would break.  Saudi Arabia, replete with cash, might be willing to hold out longer than some of the other OPEC members but, as soon as one OPEC country broke and started to sell two things would happen, the price of oil would start to drop thereby giving relief to the OPIC countries and the other OPEC members would begin to follow suit.  The former OPEC countries would have to compete to sell oil on the open market.  OPIC might even be able to shutter the windows.  One thing that makes me think a strategy like this could work is that OPEC does not control all the world’s oil.  This means that during the stand off the OPIC nations would not run completely out of oil. 

One objection that might arise to the idea of OPIC is that it isn’t very capitalistic.  This however, is not the case.  What is more capitalistic than leveraging all the power you have to negotiate a better price for a product?  OPIC would be a great expression of capitalism.  Labor unions and monopolies are both capitalistic in the same way.  The problem with them both is that they could potentially hurt the economy as a whole.  However OPIC would be working to help the economy. 

It is at least food for thought.  We can’t go on like this, especially with so much of the Islamic terrorism being funded by petro-dollars.  If the price of oil does in the next 9 years what it did in the previous 9 years then in 2017 we will be paying close to $1,000 a barrel.  That would be $30 or $40 a gallon at the pump!  Organisation of Petroleum Importing Countries, it has a nice ring to it doesn’t it? 

Pakistan’s President, Pervez Musharraf has in recent weeks started to look more and more like a dictator.  He postponed elections (he wasn’t elected to start with), sacked the Supreme Court and padded it with supporters, placed former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto under house arrest, and rounded up hundreds of political opponents.  He is also a close ally of the United States and the Bush administration.  In 2005 Pakistan was given a three-billion dollar arms deal.  That’s a three-billion dollar gift, not exchange.  Pakistan could not afford to spend three-billion on anything.  I do not know the total amount in military aid the United States has given to Pakistan and Musharraf since September 11th but it is surely a staggering number.  So the solution seems clear in light of Musharraf’s recent shenanigans, turn off the money pipeline.  Without U.S. support Musharraf’s government will fold, or at very least the U.S. will have sent a strong signal and he just might shape up.  There are just two problems with this. 

First and most obvious is the reason Pakistan has been getting the money in the first place, September 11th.  Before 9/11 the U.S. would not sell arms to Pakistan or India because of their nuclear saber rattling.  After September 11th we needed Pakistan’s help in routing out the Taliban on the border with Afghanistan and Musharraf was happy to oblige.  It is worth noting that India has since started to receive U.S. arms as well, in an effort to maintain the balance of power in south Asia.  The Taliban has regrouped since their initial butt-whooping in the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.  They are gaining ground in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Pakistani troops with U.S. dollars are the only thing keeping them from taking over Pakistan or at least a major section of it.  This would give them a base of operations to launch attacks into Afghanistan on U.S. and NATO troops.  It would also give a safe haven to Islamic terrorist with broader goals in mind. 

The second and perhaps even more important issue is the bomb.  Pakistan is a nuclear power.  Pakistan has nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles.  This is not like North Korea, who detonated (or rather, fizzled) a nuclear fire cracker and now claims to be a nuclear power.  Pakistan is armed to the nuclear teeth.  The U.S. (and the rest of the sane world) would much rather have Musharraf, with all his faults in control of those nukes than the Taliban or total anarchy. 

If the Taliban got its hands on those nukes they would almost certainly pass a few off to their Al Qaeda allies.  Another possibility is that they would use them against Pakistan’s mortal enemy and fellow nuclear club member, India.  This presumably would provoke India to respond in kind and the Earth would have her first nuclear war. 

The U.S can not afford not to continue to prop up Musharraf and unfortunately, he knows it.  This is one of the stickiest diplomatic situations since the end of the cold war.  I imagine the diplomatic back channels are replete with offers for Musharraf to retire to mansions in Miami in exchange for  some how securing the nukes and handing power to an elected president.  It should be interesting.