Monthly Archives: April 2008

Has Iran Declared War on Iraq?

I have recently begun blogging on Instablogs.com and have posted a few stories there. So to help promote that and to minimize the amount writing I need to do in my short amount of available time, I am occassionally going to repost those articles here. For those of you who are interested here is the link to my page on instablogs. I highly encourage all of you to check out that site, it is a great compilation of viewpoints from around the world; it appears to be Indian in origin. The most successful article I have written there is on Iran and the war in Iraq.

Consider the following:

1. Iranian weapons are continually found in Iraq being used against Iraqi and coalition forces.

2. Iran actively supports Muqtada Al’ Sadr and his ‘Army’. They also support multiple insurgent groups.

3. Has the goal of spreading the Islamic Republic to other countries, starting with the Shiite dominated southern part of Iraq.

4. They were largely behind the recent Shiite uprising in Basra and Baghdad.

Given these realities, hasn’t Iran continually committed acts of War against Iraq and arguably is in a state of War? Basically, Iraq, and the U.S. as a result, would have every right to attack Iran if and when it deemed it necessary.

What other country would allow another to actively ans semi-overtly support, with money and weaponry, dissident groups bent on overthrowing their government? I can’t think of any, save perhaps Israel dealing with Hezbollah and Iran, that can adequately defend themselves that would let such acts pass.

Could you imagine if mass riots and serious separatist movements started up in America’s Southwest, places like So. California and Arizona, by groups like La Raza who were bent upon returning that region of the US to Mexico and then definitive evidence came to light that the Mexican government was behind the movement and actively supporting it with weapons and money? Certainly, the US would initially pursue diplomatic means to resolve the issue at first, but if Mexico persisted, the US would get the military involved and take care of Mexico.

Currently, the acts by Iran may not yet justify strong military action against Iran and likely will never justify a full scale invasion. However, it should be made clear that any military action against Iran would be justified and instigated by Iran’s action herself.

In fact, if the United States really were determined to send Iran a message and decided to attack her, they would drop the nuclear justification, which is still iffy, and use the “defending the sovereignty of a free nation” excuse. Then the US and Iraq could warn Iran that for every uprising that occurs in Iraq supported by Iran, a bomb will be lobbed at a nuclear site, essential infrastructure, or a major city. One major strike per uprising until Iran ceased.

Of course this would stir up the hornets nest and Iran would like respond in kind, but Iraq and the US would have the moral highground. All Iran would have to do to stop the madness is for Iran to stop supporting insurgents in Iraq.

But let’s be honest, this is really not much of a solution. It is not a terrible idea, but there are too many variables and unknowns. What is known is that a war with Iran cannot be fought like a war with Iraq. A military invasion with the Army marching to Tehran would be ridiculous. Iran is a more developed country, a harsher geography with more difficult to access capitol, a better military than Iraq, and a sophisticated and proud population. A war with Iran would have to be fought like the Yugoslavia conflict in the 1990’s, straight air war. There would be no invasion, no removal of governments, no money for rebuilding, cutting of trade, and no money or troops to help rebuild the country; just a lot of bombs hitting strategic targets to take out Iran’s infrastructure and cripple it into submission.

One could go on and on about how a potential war with Iran would work, what the consequences would be, the risk of China and Russia getting involved, the rise of Persian nationalism, and so forth. My point is not to advocate war with Iran at all, but to point out the fact that Iran is already in a war with Iraq, Iraq and the US just have not acted in kind. War with Iran is actually the last thing the US wants right now, but both Iraq and the US would be perfectly justified doing so. No country should be allowed to do what Iran has done, especially in the last month in Basra and Baghdad, with impunity.

2 Comments

Filed under Election 2008, Politics

Redeploy This!

Over the past year or so the favorite phrase of the democrats regarding the war in Iraq usually has been a variation of “We are calling for a full redeployment of troops.”  The term redeploy (or  slight variations of it) as used by Democrats completely drives me up the wall and is the stupidest word I have heard used in a politics. And the funny thing is, the media never-ever calls them out it.  What a bunch of hacks.

Redeploy, especially to those of us with military backgrounds, implies sending a deployed troop from one deployment to a different one; something like redeploying a troop from Iraq to Afghanistan.  If it doesn’t conjur this view up, it makes us think a soldier is being deployed yet again after a short stint home.  But does any soldier actually hear the term “redeployment” and think, “hey, that means I’m going home?”  Probably not, at least not until it became a political buzz word for our anti-Iraq left.

Basically the term redeployment is a rouse.  It is a cover term that carries far less political baggage that saying we are going tuck our tails, retreat, and run home in the face of even the slightest opposition.  Certainly by using the term redeployment, it protects the dems politically.  Most Americans don’t pay attention to where candidates actually stand, nor do they care (just look at the success of Obama);  basically we allow uninformed ignorant people to choose our leaders.  So the average voter hears the term redeployment and thinks, “oh they care about the troops and are going to bring them home in an honorable and militaristic fashion”, for the word redeployment sounds militaristic.  What a bunch of suckers.

The thing that drives me nuts it that no one that I have seen, until this post, has called anyone out for it.  Am I the only one that notices this?  I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.   It reminds of how no one seems to notice that the phrase “I could care less” makes absolutely no sense”.   What is wrong with people?  Anyway,  let’s stop allowing the left a free pass for making up words (is redeploy even a word?) and then using them to try to con the people.  In fact, we should call out people from whatever persuasion for doing this.  We should demand that the lefties say what they mean and that is, “we need to surrender and bring are troops home now.”    Hold their feet to the fire.

3 Comments

Filed under Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, Politics

By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them

Since starting this blog, I have discussed with many people the various theological differences between the LDS Church and Christendom as a whole.  Certainly, the differences are significant and, as has been proven many times, there are many conflicts of belief that seem will never be resolved and we often have to agree to disagree.  For the most part, the comments and conversations I have been party to have been civil and respectful.  Both sides seem to be careful to only discuss doctrinal differences while avoiding criticism of the other person’s faith as a whole and for this I am grateful.  However, there have been many times, both here and on other websites (and, I might add, that I experience just living life in an area where Mormons are few) when people have called the LDS Church the “Church of the Devil” or denigrated our Prophet (more than just question such a reality or the need/doctrinal justification for a Prophet).  We are criticized by many as leading our people to hell and blinding folks from the truth. 

I thought about these views and comments as I watched the General Conference of the LDS Church this past weekend.  It was a weekend of wise and joyous instruction, where we were given the opportunity to hear from those we consider Prophets and other leaders of our faith.  It was the first Conference to which President and Prophet Thomas S. Monson was at the helm and leading up to the Conference I was praying for a confirming feeling or impression that he was indeed called and chosen by God himself, but I will get to that later. 

The one thing that struck me about all the messages delivered this weekend was the humility, wisdom, and optimism the leaders of the Church have.  This was most apparent to me as I attended Priesthood session on Saturday night.  The concluding three speakers, taking up all of the last hour, consisted of the First Presidency.  They all spoke about staying on course and repentence, yet they all took it from very different perspectives.  Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf spoke about the need to stay on direct course and how even a one degree deviation off course can lead to us being extremely lost, President Henry B. Eyring spoke about the doctrine of the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood and the need for we Priesthood members to be faithful in fulfilling that covenant, and President Monson spoke on obedience to duty and the need for more faithfulness.  In each of these talks we were essentially called to repentance.  But it was not a call in vanity or rebuke, but a call in love and encouragement.  It was readily apparent that one of the greatest concerns the First Presidency has is the increased prevalence of sexual sin (President Monson had an incredible quote about tolerance, but I don’t have it with me, I will do a post on a few of my favorite quotes later).   As I listened to these fine men speak, I realized that the image that critics of the Church try to paint about our Prophet is in no way accurate.  These men who lead the Church do not do so in a quest for power or to feed their vanity. One just needs to watch and listen to their speeches to understand this.  They lead because they were called by God and out of an unbending faith and dedication to him. 

The phrase “By their Fruits ye Shall Know Them” resounded regularly in my mind.  Indeed, people may criticize our faith and our leaders all they want, but they do so blindly and in vain.  I can understand one choosing not to believe our doctrines or that we are the true Church; I will not criticize one who came to such a conclusion after study and prayer.  However the childish and irrational name calling and denigration of the Church is inaccurate and contrary to all evidence readily available to one who takes the time to study and research.  Indeed, the fruits of our leaders are good and sweet.   I encourage all to take the time to read and consider the words of the Apostles and Prophets, especially if you are not of our faith.  Come and see what truths have been restored and know that Christ’s church with the same organization that existed in his time is again restored to the earth.

Now allow me to close with my testimony of President Monson.   As I said above, I came into Conference praying for a confirmation of his divine calling.  This was the first transfer of authority in the leadership of the Church that I can really remember.  President Hinckley was a giant among men and one whom I loved deeply.  I also had a great affinity for President Monson, but oddly I found it difficult to hold him up to the same pedastal that I put President Hinckley on.  Saturday night was the first talk he delivered in Conference as the head of the Church.  As soon as he stood and started speaking I felt that still small voice and confirming feeling that he was called of God and leads this Church through direct revelation. 

1 Comment

Filed under Bible, Book of Mormon, Christian, Christianity, Doctrine, LDS, Mormon, Mormonism, Religion

D. Todd Christofferson Called as New Apostle in LDS Church; New First Presidency Sustained

Interesting, to start General Conference, following the hymn and prayer, President Uchtdorf explained how and why we sustain Church officers and the Church seems to have changed the way in which sustainings occur.   They had the First Presidency stand and sustain the President, First Presidency, and Quorum of the Twelve.  Once that was conculded they had the Twelve arise and sustain the same, then had the first and second quorum of the Seventy stand and sustain, then had the all area seventies, patriarchs, HP and Elders throughout the world stand and sustain the same, following that they had the Aaronic Priesthood arise and sustain, followed by the Relief Society, then Young Women and all other members of the Church stand and sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as previously consitituted.  It was very interesting and the first time they have done that as I recall.   Funny how things change with the changing of a President.

D. Todd Christofferson was called and sustained as the newest member of the Quorum of the Twelve.  Elder Christofferson was born on January 24, 1945 in American Fork, Utah.  He was called as a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy at the April General Conference, 1993 and in August 1998 he was called to the Presidency of the Seventy.  His latest assignment was presiding over the North America Northwest and North America West areas of the Church.  In his personal life he supported himself and his family as a lawyer.

Here is an interview Reuters did with Elder Christofersson in 2007.

The members of the Church sustained President Thomas S. Monson, Henry B. Eyring, and Dieter F. Uchtdorf as Prophets, Seers and Revelators for the first time

5 Comments

Filed under Christian, Christianity, LDS, Mormon, Mormonism, Religion

An Absolut World Through the Reconquista

No, what you see above is not part of an underground La Raza goal planning briefing, it is part of the new advertising campaign for Absolut Vodka in Mexico.  Obviously playing on Mexican nationalist sentiments, Absolut implies that in a perfect world, about 1/2 of the United States would be Mexico.  This advertisement completely makes a mockery of national sovereignty and potentially only feeds the building sentiment in the SW U.S. and in Mexico about the re-conquering of “Mexico territory”. 

I am not one that typically calls for boycotts or silly actions aimed at making a political point.  I thought the call for a French boycott in 2003 was ridiculous and changing the name Frech Fries to Freedom Fries was even more so.  Even in this instance I do not call for the absolute boycott of Absolut, although I would fully support someone who made that decision on their own.  For me, the choice is easy, I don’t drink so I basically boycott all alcohol. Nevertheless, whether or not one chooses to boycott Absolut, at the least all consumers should contact Absolut and vent their disgust at such an ad campaign.  It is completely inappropriate. 

Now I recognize that this is just an ad campaign.  I seriously doubt Absolut vodka actually support the reconquista.  I also would not be so concerned about an ad campaign such as this if it were not playing on a real issue with a real movement behind it.  If they did the exact same ad with Canada claiming the Pacific Northwest or with Norway claiming Sweden, I wouldn’t really care because they are not really issues with any movement. But the reconquista movement is moving forward and is a real threat. 

I recognize that anyone that dares make such a claim is automatically labelled as racist.  Fine, call me racist.  Personally, I couldn’t care less what race, color, creed you are;  I just care about my country and preserving her sovereignty.  But even there I am not as hard core when it comes to illegal immigration or border control as many off my peers on the right.  However, I do believe that groups like La Raza have the ultimate goal of seeing SW U.S. return to Mexico.   Signs of the reconquista movement are everywhere, they were around back in the mid-1990’s as well. 

One of my favorite bands and perhaps the largest influence on me becoming politically minded was Rage Against the Machine (even though we disagree on practically everything).  They regularly sang about revolution and dropped jabs about reconquista and Mexican nationalism. 

In addition to La Raza, who tries to downplay their nationalist tendencies, there is also the Mexica Movement, who calls for the complete reconquest of North America by her indiginous people and the National Will Organization that calls for the standard reconquest of the American Southwest.  

While I personally think the reconquista movement is not a major threat at the moment, the more I read about it the more I think that there is the potential for trouble in the future; almost Islamic-fundamentalist like trouble.  Since the 1970’s and 80’s people have been talking about flooding the American SW with hispanics from Mexico in order to facilitate such a revolution.  While I think that on an individual basis, legal and illegal immigrants from Mexico come here with the intention of providing a better life for themselves and their families, there are well-organized organizations who are encouraging these movements for more sinister purposes. 

Ultimately, I am not ready to make the full leap into the conspiracy of the Reconquista, at least as a major movement, but it is something to be watched and monitored.  Controlling our borders is essential, but not to keep Mexicans out, but simply because we have laws about entering our country and they need to be upheld.  For me the issue isn’t immigration it is legal sovereignty.  As many hispanics, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, Asians, etc can come to our country as can make it for all I care, I just want them to do it legally. We have a process for a reason, use it.

 Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

P.S. The people living in the American SW would likely fight to death before allowing Mexico to take it over.  The SW is prosperous, modern, and generally well governed and free.  The last thing they want is a country with the poor leadership and infrastructure of Mexico taking it over.  Mexico can barely run the land they have, let alone attempting to take over a huge swath of the United States.  What a joke.

1 Comment

Filed under Equality, Illegal immigration, Immigration, International Affairs, Politics, Progress, Progressive

The Hypocricy of the Left; More Mass Graves in Iraq

There are many reasons that I have stated in the past for why I think we need to stay in Iraq and not leave until the job is done. All of the reasons I have stated are valid and legitimate and make compelling arguments, but none is more important or compelling than the simple obligation we have to protect and provide a measure of stability to the Iraqi people.    This one reason alone is why it is essential to stay the course in Iraq and I find it extremely hypocritical of the “anti-war Left” to demand that we withdraw our troops out now.

The Left is suppossed to be the champion of civil rights, of peace and freedom, they are anti-torture, anti-totalitarianism, they criticize the West for not doing enough to protect people in Sudan or Rwanda.  They yell and scream over injustices as the U.S. pursues it’s interests over the interests of the developing world.  And they try to guilt us into spending untolds amount of dollars to “save the environment” and save us from global warming, a theory that is still widely disputed in academia.  Yet they have the gall to not only accept, but seemingly welcome, the inevitable horrors and, dare I say, genocide that would likely occur if the U.S.-led coalition withdrew from Iraq today.   Why?  All because they hate George Bush and, let’s be honest, the hegemony of the United States. 

So why am I so riled up about this today?  Because yet again mass graves of innocent people have been uncovered in Iraq.  Mass graves filled with at least 50 bodies of average, everyday Iraqis who were killed by Al Qa’eda in Iraq (AQI).  Not only have 50 bodies been found but that is only 1/3 of the orchard where likely more bodies yet remain and there are at least two more orchards that are believed to be burial grounds as well. 

So how did this happen?  Why did AQI do this? Read the following:

In 2006, al Qaeda in Iraq declared Diyala province the center of its Islamic State of Iraq caliphate. The Himbus area, with its fruit orchards providing cover from aircraft, became a major weapons storage area and training center. And it ruled with an iron fist.

“When they first came into the area, they said they were mujahideen fighting the occupation forces. But later they started forcing people to give them money and forcing them from their homes. People who worked for the Iraq Army or the Iraqi Police were punished,” said Sheik Abbas Hussein Khalaf, the leader of nearby Taiyah village.

They imposed their rules: no music, no smoking, the woman had to wear the veil, and there were no wedding celebrations allowed. No one was allowed out after 5 p.m.”

Some people were shot in front of the people in the street, others were kidnapped, killed and put in the mass graves.”

One of them was a cousin, he said, the brother of the man who had escaped and told U.S. troops about the graves.

Mass executions, once associated with Saddam Hussein’s regime, became a tool of terror used by al Qaeda as it took over vast swaths of Iraq following the 2003 U.S. invasion.

So what makes you folks who are so oppossed to our continued presence in Iraq so confident that this same thing would not occur if we were to leave now?  or is it that you aren’t sure, but are so mad and ticked off at Bush and the U.S. that you don’t care or are blinded to the realities?  I suspect the latter. 

Do you think that AQI only did this because we are there and they are trying to get us out and once we leave they will be benevolent rulers?  If you do you are ignorant and stupid.   AQI was acting precisely as the Taliban acted in the 1990’s and there is no reason to suspect AQI would not do the same in future. 

Granted, things are going relatively well in Iraq right now.  It is far more stable that it was a year ago or in 2006 when these killings occurred.  But the security situation is still unreliable and uncertain, as evidenced by the recent upswing of violence in Basra. 

If the Left-wing of our country and around the world really cared about human rights, peace, and freedom they would stop demanding that we pull our troops home immediately.  They would stop and think about the humanitarian situation on the ground and the likely humanitarian crisis that would arise out of a result of our early exit.  

Now, I don’t care if you want to complain and hate on Bush, fine.  Do that all you want.  Blame him for getting us in to Iraq in the first place and criticize him all you want.  Even feel free to criticize our military commanders for poor strategy and planning at the beginning of the war if you want.  I don’t mind your criticism of the process or the initial decision making issues, but results are what matters now, especially when we are talking about life and death.  The left should be leading the call for us to see it through to ensure human rights and safety for every Iraqi person, those issues, so core to the current situation in Iraq, is what the left wing preaches everyday for the rest of the world, but apparently they consider the Iraqi people unworthy of the same support that is so freely given to the people in Darfur or other ravaged areas.  The left needs to do some real soul searching and refine their message in a manner that condemns the mistakes and ‘punishes’ those that made them in the whole Iraq process, but also call for whatever needs to be done to prevent a genocide in Iraq; starting with the maintainment of our troops to root out extremists like those associated with AQI.

1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Conservative, Democrats, Election 2008, Genocide, Global Warming, International Affairs, Iraq, Liberal, Liberalism, Politics, Progress, Progressive, Uncategorized