About Me

Name: thekeenobserver
Email: reallykeenobserver@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Make nice...not war! Obama's solution to conflict resolution

Posted by thekeenobserver on Thursday, June 11, 2009 5:31:37 PM

By the late 18th Century, the fearsome reputation of the Barbary Pirates (who had been seizing ships of "Christian" nations) forced many to routinely accede to the stiff tributes they demanded.

 

The Europeans-- despite their strong navies-- found it easier to pay up than try to suppress the seafaring treachery. During America's War of Independence, our ships sailed under the protection of the 1778 alliance with France.

 

However, after 1783 -- the war's conclusion-- American shipping was left defenseless. Congress then appropriated $80,000 (tribute money) and directed Jefferson and Adams to begin negotiations with the Barbary States.

 

But in 1784, two ships-- the Maria (of Boston) and the Dauphine (of Philadelphia)-- were captured by Algiers, and their crews enslaved. A $60,000 ransom was demanded.

 

Our nation's first Secretary State, Thomas Jefferson, told Congress..."We must choose: either war... or pay tribute and ransom."

 

Jefferson-- believing war was the only realistic choice-- advocated the creation of a navy, saying, "Tribute paid was money thrown away"... and..."the only thing pirates understood was gunpowder and shot."

 

The newspapers of the day were in strong agreement, and began their editorial theme: "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."

 

But now, it seems like the Obama administration has essentially gotten it backwards, proclaiming, "870 billion for stimulus, but not ONE red cent for the military!" 

Of course, given Obama's strong support AGAINST military action, it's obvious where his true priorities lie: money for everything from preventing teen pregnancy, to saving the California field harvest mouse-- but again...not one cent for the military.

 

In fact, Mr.Obama has instructed Defense Secretary Gates to make grievous cuts in the defense budget, which will undoubtedly haunt the Pentagon should an unplanned future war break out.

 

But that's "professor backwards" Obama in action-- our anti-commander in chief --who obviously sees the U.S. military as a PROBLEM, rather than a solution.

 

You could see it all coming with the Somali pirate incident, when Hillary Clinton weighed in with her "laughing-hyena" speech-- proclaiming: "The world must come together to solve this CRIMINAL problem."

 

From the outset, the pirate incident was defined by the Obama administration as a "hostage situation"-- not an act of war -- hence, FBI negotiators were delivered to the scene because... "violence was to be averted...restraint must be shown..." 

 

Ironically, it became evident that (Mersk Alabama) captain Phillips could've escaped the first time he swam away (all the Navy need have done was blow the young pirates on the lifeboat to smithereens); but they had orders NOT to fire.

 

But after the fifth day of the tense standoff-- as the lifeboat slowly drifted nearer to the safety of the Somali coast-- it was apparent that Obama had to "get real" and give permission to take action should another opportunity present itself.

 

And were it not for Commander Frank Castellano of the USS Bainbridge-- who finally ordered the Navy Seals to open fire on the pirates-- a 1979 Iran hostage-type situation would have re-curred, with America again looking flabby, and Obama with a 25% approval rating, ala Jimmy Carter, who also abhorred military action.

 

But it was military action that had saved the Obama P.R. goose from being cooked; and he has responded in kind-- the Miranda requirement -- ordering soldiers in the Afghan theater to start reading rights to enemy terrorists, and gravely impeding their ability to pursue intelligence on the battlefield,  

 

This guarantees tying our military's hands at the treasonous behest of the U.S. Dept. of Injustice. If you are an American soldier, do you now think twice about shooting to kill, (or attempt to capture the enemy) and possibly risk being tried for a "war crime" by Eric Holder, with the ACLU whispering in his ear?

 

Obama's newest addition to the war on terror is the equivalent of bringing social justice to the battlefield-- now were REALLY fighting dirty!

 

But what's next? Squirt guns instead of M-16's? Paint ball projectiles? Slingshots? Bows and arrows? Spitballs? How about adopting those suction-tipped rubber darts fired from spring-loaded toy guns (like you played with as a kid) Thwock! Dead center hit on the enemy's forehead! Gotcha!

 

Jesus once said:  "Go out and make thine enemy thy friend"; and Obama seems to have taken the Lord's message to heart..."Make nice-- not war."

 

Essentially, "mirandizing" the enemy means everything has changed-- the battlefield becomes a crime scene.

 

So now, must soldiers ask questions first, and shoot later? Will the policy from the Whitehouse be..."don't shoot back until the terrorist has shot at you at least three times?" Or..."don't fire until you see the whites of their lies."

 

Evidently, Mr. Obama has been taking in a few too many reruns of CSI-- letting a prisoner know that he now has legal rights.

 

This insane policy shift-- replacing a CIA-dominated, clandestine interrogation system with one of "transparent investigations" and  ACLU-style "prosecutions"-- is bleeding heart liberalism that belies basic common sense.

 

General Patton surely is rolling over in his grave. Obama has redefined war-- no blood, no guts, no shooting to kill-- just  show the world that we respect human rights.

 

Where did this Obama guy learn this? Not from any AMERICAN history book.

 

It's blatantly obvious that it was all a sham because of the sneaky-creepy way Obama-- and his bottom-feeding Attorney General Holder (the quiet man) -- first implemented their new "strategy."

 

There was no media coverage; no formal announcement; no Congressional approval-- just roll out the orders on the sly, and let the FBI carry out the dirty work in the field.

 

Obama cares not about the welfare our fighting men; he cares not about defending America; he cares not for the real way of fighting a war-- he plays at war. He actually is in denial of war, because in his liberal heart, it's not "playing fair."

 

Pity our brave young soldiers, who leave their safe, clean environment; their families & friends; their education; their jobs-- everything-- for what? To go to a god- forsaken land, and be ambushed, shot at, risk being decapitated, or blown up into a million fragments by some 15 year-old Jihadi kid-- promised 72 virgins-- who's quite wiling to die...only to discover they must now show "restraint"; they must now "be fair"; they must now respect the enemies' right to habeas corpus-- they can't interrogate prisoners-- they must read them their Miranda rights, and watch 'em close up tighter than a spastic clam.

 

What an innovative way to "fight" a war. Such tradition.

 

From the Halls of Montezema to the Shores of Tripoli; and now in the mountains and valleys of Afghanistan, we have U.S. troops who must act as defacto lawyers, and are expected to do what? Fight? Negotiate? Be nice? What is their actual role?

 

And pity the poor Marine back home in D.C., who's duty it is to salute Mr.Obama (with gritted teeth) whenever he disembarks from his helicopter on the Whitehouse lawn. He must be thinking..."I have to salute this worm-spined guy, who's supposed to be our commander in chief? I'll have to look for another job."

There can only be three assumptions at work here: (1) Obama is perilously naive (2) Obama sympathizes with Islamic extremists (3) Obama is not fond of America and actually wants our country to fail.

There is no other possible explanation for what Obama is doing, and/or why he does it.
 
Our bold commander-in-appeasement continues to say one thing, but does the opposite. And by making nice to our enemies (as Jimmy Carter once attempted to do) surely all the nice Muslim terrorists will return the favor.

So now let us all "outreach" to our enemies, and close with the Obama Creed; (you are welcome to sing along)

 

"I am Obama, champion of the meek;
 Attack America, and I will turn the other cheek.

 We will appease rather than take a stand;

 while I transform America into a socialist land.

 Long live Karl Marx, and John Maynard Keynes;

 as I uproot the Constitution, and reinterpret what it means."
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The REAL pirates off the Somali coast: who are they?

Posted by thekeenobserver on Monday, April 27, 2009 6:39:59 PM

Remember the old territorial gangster feuds in Chicago in the 1920s? The most infamous was the brute clash of the Capone Gang versus the 'Bugsy' Moran mob, culminating in the St. Valentine's Day Massacre.
 
Well in a sense, that's kind of what's been taking place around Somalia since the last decade; but media coverage of this "gangster feud at sea" has been largely non-existent.

In America, there is an intriguing curiosity concerning the captured, baby-faced 19 year old Somali pirate "lad," who stands accused of being the mastermind behind the attack on the Maersk Alabama. He faces serious charges that could mean life in prison; he is the first person in more than a century to be charged with piracy.

Yet he's smiling! But why? What's to be happy about? The prospect of life in prison-- or worse?

But in order to reveal this inexplicability, we must first proceed with a little backround history...the "Somalia story."

In the late 19th century, the seas around Somalia--one of the most fertile fishing grounds of all the Indian ocean--were first plundered by British colonial fisherman.

But for the Somali people, with Africa's longest coastline, (and a largely desert landscape), fishing had provided people one of the only ways for survival on such a barren land.

Somalia is now so dirt poor that people actually sleep on the ground; there are no beds, and little in the way of housing, shelter, or even sanitation, let alone enough provisions to go around to feed oneself.
 
So from the time they're very young, Somalian children quickly learn to adapt and develop survival skills ...or else.

After fishing Somalia's coastline dry, it was only then did the colonial Europeans depart. So for the next century, there was relative calm off Somalia's coast, while the inland inhabitants largely subsisted on agriculture and raising cattle.

Then a generation ago, came two severe droughts (1974 and 1986). Tens of thousands of nomadic Somalis --whose livestock were wiped out --re-settled along the coast. They developed into large communities that became dependent on offshore fishing.

In 1992, with the fall of the General Barre regime (and the disintegration of the Somali Navy), sea-poachers swooped in and began competing for the abundant rock-lobster and prized pelagia fish in the deep ocean shelf off the Horn of Africa. European ships --having destroyed their own fish stocks by over-exploitation – now moved in to overfish the Somali coastlines, as the English had done100 years before.
 
Russian and Chinese trawlers also began using 30 mile-long drift nets, stealing an invaluable protein source from some of the world’s poorest people, and ruining the livelihoods of the legitimate fishermen. Even Kenya-registered fishing vessels participated in the rape of the Somali fishing grounds.

This vicious use of drift nets-- basically "strip-mining at sea"-- has allowed an estimated $300 million worth of seafood to be stolen from the country's coastline in the last ten years, a staggering sum that could have transformed the country to a functional, market economy.
 
Like the American gangster territorial wars of the 1920's, the Somali fisherman began tossing aside their fishing gear and picked up AK-47's instead.
 
But that's only half of this ecological nightmare; it gets worse-- much worse-- and also has been largely ignored by the media.

By the mid 90's, toxic dumping off the Somali coast had become another "growth industry." European companies began callously skirting the strict environmental rules in their home countries, and mysterious ships were dumping vast numbers of barrels into the ocean.

The coastal population began to experience strange rashes, nausea, tumors, and congenitally malformed births. After a 2005 tsunami, hundreds of leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 3000 died.

So who were the one's acting as pirates?

Even now, large seeping containers often wash ashore along with thousands of dead fish, driving the hapless Somalians away from their own coastline. Somalia has complained for two decades, but with zero response from the international community.

According to the U.N. it cost $2.50 per ton for a European company to dump  waste off the Horn of Africa, as opposed to $250 per ton to dispose of it properly in Europe.

In a telephone interview, a Somali pirate "spokesperson", known as Sugule Ali, gave a story that became a headline in a recent edition of the "Times of London": it read..."They stole our lobsters; and poisoned our beaches."

Now, with no other choice, local militias, collaborating with Somali fishermen, began to capture vessels, and demanded legitimate compensation in the form of illegal dumping fines. But the scheme quickly shifted to 21st century piracy.

But still, the ravage by foreign vessels off Somalia's coast goes on unjustified, unabated, and unreported.

Unpoliced fishermen have been resorting to detonating underwater explosives, killing endangered species like sea-turtles, orca, sharks, and baby whales, as well as destroying the reefs and vital fish habitats in the sea. But still, this largely remains ignored altogether by the civilized world.

It’s a primary example of how one-sided media coverage can unjustly distort the picture of who actually are the REAL pirates.

So is it any wonder that our smiling Somali prisoner is overjoyed to be in U.S., with 3 squares, and a relatively clean place to sleep and shower? Even though he may be in prison on Riker's Island, it's a half-a-world away from his dirt poor native land.
 
No doubt, our pirate is happy to  be in a prison. To him now, he can eat like a king, sleep in a real bed, enjoy the sanitary facilities, and spend his time watching cableTV -- the lifestyle of an aristocrat in Somalia.

Just like the Jeffersons, our smiling teen pirate captive will be “moving on up.”
 
This is a "shining" example of why Americans kids take their country for granted-- and why immigrants see it as a land of wealth and fantasy.

Just imagine what was going through our captured prisoner’s mind, as he as rode through New York City to his initial hearing: "Look at all these cars; and these Americans...so well dressed...so clean... and many of them are so fat."

An obese Somalian? Never!

"I'm actually in  America...I made it! I won't ever go hungry again. I can sleep on a bed like a civilized human being. I can educate myself in the prison library. Hey, I might even learn to write, and author an autobiography and get rich, and possibly be released in 25 years, and I will be free in America!"

Free at last...free at last.
 
Yes-- free in America- the land of opportunity; that's probably how the rail-thin Somali teen pirate sees it.

So who doesn't blame him for smiling? It's probably every Somali kid's fantasy dream: to go from barely surviving in the world's poorest country, then overnight, to be living for the rest of your life in the world's richest land.
 
But what about minority children who are born in America, and grow up poor? What's their perspective on life in the world's richest country?
 
Despite their poverty, they have food in abundance; the U.S.is the only country on earth with grossly obese poor people.
 
Despite their "poverty," most poor kids have fashionable clothes, cellphones, and the "bling" to go with it.
 
Despite their poverty, they attend public schools in a country that spends more on its students per capita than almost any other nation in the world; yet many refuse to apply themselves, and accuse those who do of "acting white."

This curiosity was first formally proposed in the mid-80's by Mr. John Ogbu, an emigrating Nigerian professor of anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley, which has since become almost a truism: "When minority students try hard and do well, they are disparaged by their less successful peers for "acting white."

Hence, many end up with no education, no motivation, no future, with their only survival skill being their ability to cash their monthly Obama check.

And for those who do graduate and go on to college, most take "ethnic studies" courses, or major in ‘womens' studies, and graduate with few marketable skills other than being hired for a supervisory position with ACORN (or going into the military, which is an honorable career, but requires no college).
 
Now let’s play our favorite game…"what if."

What if, by some master-stroke, the young Somali pirate's ACLU lawyer is able to get him freed, somehow convincing the jury that he was a "misguided youth," and "had no other recourse but the peer pressure to piracy."

America (being the magnanimous country that it is) would no doubt permit him to stay, and perhaps, with an outpouring of sympathy, the acquitted pirate would be given a place to live until he "gets on his feet."

And within a decade, who would bet against the fact that our young, poor Somali pirate would become successful, because he was grateful for the opportunity to live in America, where you're restricted only by the limitations placed on oneself --and not blame anyone else.

So for all those American kids out there who are born into poverty, grow up hating their circumstances, and blame everyone for their "misfortune" and lack of opportunity; perhaps we should administer some tough love if they should drop out of school --'sentence' them to a year in Somalia --and see what happens when they're allowed to return.

It'd be interesting indeed to find out.

And realistically, could we expect starving Somalians to stand passively on their beaches, paddling in someone else's toxic waste, watching foreigners snatch their fish to be eaten in restaurants in London and Paris?

If this was going on off the coastlines of America, how would we respond?
 
The essence of the modern war on piracy could be best summarized by the story of a captured 4th-centuy BC pirate, who-- after being brought before Alexander the Great-- the fabled Alexander demanded to know: "What do you mean by your attempt to keep possession of the sea?"

The smiling pirate responded: "The same as what you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber: while you, who do it with a great army and fleet, are called emperor."
 
So once again-- who was being the real pirate?


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

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